Discussion Mathematical proof on why suicide is irrational

[Hazrakaht]

Is sasu compromised or something now?

 

[Pluto]

 

[CogitoMori]

the risk is undifined, therefore you shouldn't take the risk. If it was a stock in the stock market, no one would buy.

Exactly, they'd be selling, so why shouldn't we "sell" our lives on the downswing?

 

[Johnzaga23]

Interesting application of decision theory and probability. My rebuttal (I will not use mathematical notation and hope people not into maths can follow along):

I appreciate that you understand what i'm saying, and i appreciate your critique.

You posit that the probability of hell is an "infinitely small" number and its value is infinetly negative. However, multiplying an infinitesimal by an infinite value is mathematically undefined without context. Expected utility theory (which you're implying here) breaks down when infinities are introduced because it leads to paradoxes. For example: If hell has a value of negative infinity, then even if its probability is 1 in a googolplex (an insanely large number, google it) the expected utility would still be negative infinity. This would make any action with a non-zero chance of hell (no matter how small) irrational, not just suicide. Walking outside, eating food, or even breathing could carry some infinitesimal risk of leading to hell (e.g., via unintended consequences or divine punishment). That would lead to the result that no action is justifiable.

You make a point that every action has an infinitely small possibility of hell, however only death will directly leads to it. Therefore, we should be afraid of death and avoid it if possible. There is a reason why people want to achieve immortality here in this world. Because they are afraid of death, and they should be. We should be.

This basically reads like a variant of Pascal's Wager, which has been extensively critiqued. If you're agnostic about hell, you must also be agnostic about the possibility of an infinitely good afterlife (e.g., heaven). If hell has almost zero probability and -inf value, then heaven could have the same probability and value. The expected utility would then be "(infinitely bad) times (almost zero)" plus "(infinitely good) times (almost zero)", which is also undefined. You can't arbitrarily ignore positive infinites while focusing on negative ones. There even could be afterlives with finite but extreme suffering, or afterlives where suicide is rewarded. Without knowing the probabilities or values, the calculation is meaningless.

Also about the infinitely good afterlife, i assume the asymmetry argument to avoid that discussion. But, even then, if you do the maths, the answer will still be undefinable, but its more complex.

Philosophically, you assign non-existence a finite value (x), but even this is contentious. Many philosophers argue that non-existence has no value, not even neutral, because there is nobody to experience it. If non-existence is valueless (x=0), and other afterlives are uncertain, the calculation changes further.

I assign non existence a positive value because its positive compared to life. Everything has assigned a value compared to life.

Even if we grant that hell is a logical possibility, its probability is not just infinitesimal but arguably zero because:
1. There is no empirical evidence for hell (or any afterlife).
2. The concept of hell is culturally contingent (not all religions have it).
3. If we're agnostic about unobserved entities, we must also be agnostic about infinitely many other speculative horrors (e.g., "torture universes," "anti-heavens"). Assigning non-zero probability to all of them would be absurd.

here is where i STRONGLY disagree with you. We know nothing. Literally nothing. We only assume, based on inductive, scientific reasoning that probably there's no afterlife. Probably. The same way we assume that natural selection is the sole reason for evolution. Probably. We do not know. We don't know if there's a teapot orbiting Uranus. Probably not. But could be.

Your argument assumes that continuing life has a finite cost (the pain one wants to escape), while death has an undefined risk. But if life is sufficiently unbearable (e.g., unrelenting torture), the certainty of extreme suffering may outweigh an undefined risk. This is not an irrational gamble!

I understand that. But thats why we shouldnt gamble unless we are pushed too much. It should be last resort. Can we agree on that?

 

[CogitoMori]

I understand that. But thats why we shouldnt gamble unless we are pushed too much. It should be last resort. Can we agree on that?

It is inherently the last resort in a creature that's made to fight for its own survival by instinct. Nobody is using it as a first option.

 

[butimstillsoblue]

I'll assume that you haven't taken calculus yet.

its called an assumption for a reason. But i can prove it without the assumption but its more complex.

the risk is undifined, therefore you shouldn't take the risk. If it was a stock in the stock market, no one would buy.

It seems like you just want to be a dickhead by arguing with people.

I'm out too. What a waste of time.

 

[bankai]

You're getting the nobell prize OP,my heads ringing like a gong from reading that.

 

[Johnzaga23]

It seems like you just want to be a dickhead by arguing with people.

I'm out too. What a waste of time.

sorry being a dick is not my intention i just want to have a honest conversation

It is inherently the last resort in a creature that's made to fight for its own survival by instinct. Nobody is using it as a first option.

Good enough. But i think that many people who don't have to die still do

 

[Melly]

Ok but you didn't need any maths to explain this argument. The premise is wrong, the maths aren't correct either. It's just the "don't kill yourself because the possibility of going to hell makes it not worth it" argument.

What if actually, killing yourself is the only way to avoid hell and get into heaven? By your logic that infinitely small chance of this being true means everyone should kill themselves now. It's bs. I don't agree with it.

But thats why we shouldnt gamble unless we are pushed too much.

Every decision in life is a gamble, including dying or staying alive. It's not a good argument. "Don't die because you don't know what comes next" okay but this can also be twisted into "don't live because you don't know what comes next". Except there's a higher chance of me being mauled by a bear or getting cancer than of a microwave currently orbiting uranus or of a creator of the universe punishing you forever, for the crime of having been too ill and already suffering too much in this life to keep going.

Suicide already IS the last resort. There is no universal prolife argument that makes sense. The only way to keep people alive is to alleviate their suffering and help them find alternatives that apply to their situation because as I said, suicide IS the last resort. The vast majority of people on here don't want to die out of nowhere, they want to escape unbearable circumstances.

 

[CogitoMori]

Good enough. But i think that many people who don't have to die still do

Whether they have to or not is irrelevant. It is THEIR life and THEIR choice what to do with it

 

[Intoxicated]

What if actually, killing yourself is the only way to avoid hell and get into heaven? By your logic that infinitely small chance of this being true means everyone should kill themselves now. It's bs.

Yeah, as far as I know, lots of people actually killed themselves expecting a better afterlife.

 

[Forveleth]

See kids, this is why you do not try to OD on meds. This is what happens to your brain afterwards.

 

[Darkover]

I swear i don't do crack.

maybe not but definitely a crackpot

 

[LittleMagician]

I will attempt to prove mathematically, using probability theory and calculus, on why suicide might be a poor decision. I swear i don't do crack. This might be a whole lot of bullshit that i would want to delete afterwards, but yolo. I believe that this place is open to different perspectives and welcomes discussion for and against suicide. Also, I will assume two philosophical ideas. Agnostic atheism, and asymmetry of pain and pleasure. I figured that I can prove that suicide is irrational even without the asymmetry argument, but the maths are more complex, and i strive to keep it simple. So here we go:
Assume that there is an infinitely small probability for hell. Just as likely for a teapot to be orbiting Uranus. Very unlikely, but you never know. That's what the agnostic atheists believe. But the value of hell is minus infinity, meaning it is infinitely bad. So the probability is dx, which is an infinitely small number, but the value of the random variable is -inf. Now, if the probability of hell is dx, then the probability of anything else is 100%-dx or 1-dx. Anything else is most likely non-existent, but it's also the possibility of some other afterlife, like heaven or something else which could be good or bad. If we say that the nonexistence has a value of x, which is a real positive number, and that the value of anything else minus hell has an expected value of y, which is a real number which could be positive or negative depentend on the propabilities of different afterlifes which are unknown, then the total value is x+y with a propability of 1-dx. (x and y are real non infinite numbers because of the premise of the assymetry argument. Nor heaven or non-existence have infinite value). So the total expected value is (1-dx)*(x+y)+dx*(-inf) which is approximately ≈(x+y)-inf*dx where (x+y) is a real number which could be positive or negative, and -inf*dx which is undefined. So the total expected value is undefined. So the risk of suicide is undefined and therefore it's an irrational decision. To put it in more understandable words, its like opening a box, where there is no limit on how bad the item inside can be. This possibility of limitless disaster is what makes suicide irrational, even if the probability of such disaster is extremely low. I dont know if my theory makes any sense. I often make theories that I later revoke. But I wanted to share this one.

Long story short: the possibility of hell makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

Do not think of hell as in the traditional Christian form. Its just the limit of how bad the afterlife can get. Just keep in mind that the uncertainty of what comes after death is so wide that the worst possible outcome is possible, and that makes death scary enough to be avoided, even if the probability of such outcome is extremely low.
View attachment 166574
The asymmetry argument:

I will attempt to prove mathematically, using probability theory and calculus, on why suicide might be a poor decision. I swear i don't do crack. This might be a whole lot of bullshit that i would want to delete afterwards, but yolo. I believe that this place is open to different perspectives and welcomes discussion for and against suicide. Also, I will assume two philosophical ideas. Agnostic atheism, and asymmetry of pain and pleasure. I figured that I can prove that suicide is irrational even without the asymmetry argument, but the maths are more complex, and i strive to keep it simple. So here we go:
Assume that there is an infinitely small probability for hell. Just as likely for a teapot to be orbiting Uranus. Very unlikely, but you never know. That's what the agnostic atheists believe. But the value of hell is minus infinity, meaning it is infinitely bad. So the probability is dx, which is an infinitely small number, but the value of the random variable is -inf. Now, if the probability of hell is dx, then the probability of anything else is 100%-dx or 1-dx. Anything else is most likely non-existent, but it's also the possibility of some other afterlife, like heaven or something else which could be good or bad. If we say that the nonexistence has a value of x, which is a real positive number, and that the value of anything else minus hell has an expected value of y, which is a real number which could be positive or negative depentend on the propabilities of different afterlifes which are unknown, then the total value is x+y with a propability of 1-dx. (x and y are real non infinite numbers because of the premise of the assymetry argument. Nor heaven or non-existence have infinite value). So the total expected value is (1-dx)*(x+y)+dx*(-inf) which is approximately ≈(x+y)-inf*dx where (x+y) is a real number which could be positive or negative, and -inf*dx which is undefined. So the total expected value is undefined. So the risk of suicide is undefined and therefore it's an irrational decision. To put it in more understandable words, its like opening a box, where there is no limit on how bad the item inside can be. This possibility of limitless disaster is what makes suicide irrational, even if the probability of such disaster is extremely low. I dont know if my theory makes any sense. I often make theories that I later revoke. But I wanted to share this one.

Long story short: the possibility of hell makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

Do not think of hell as in the traditional Christian form. Its just the limit of how bad the afterlife can get. Just keep in mind that the uncertainty of what comes after death is so wide that the worst possible outcome is possible, and that makes death scary enough to be avoided, even if the probability of such outcome is extremely low.
View attachment 166574
The asymmetry argument:
View attachment 166575

Fuck your math…
It is a manmade creation used to justify and explain irrationality when the real irrationality is humankind.

 

[cemeteryismyhome]

Well, math is hell, so there's that.

 

[Linda]

I will attempt to prove mathematically, using probability theory and calculus, on why suicide might be a poor decision. I swear i don't do crack. This might be a whole lot of bullshit that i would want to delete afterwards, but yolo. I believe that this place is open to different perspectives and welcomes discussion for and against suicide. Also, I will assume two philosophical ideas. Agnostic atheism, and asymmetry of pain and pleasure. I figured that I can prove that suicide is irrational even without the asymmetry argument, but the maths are more complex, and i strive to keep it simple. So here we go:
Assume that there is an infinitely small probability for hell. Just as likely for a teapot to be orbiting Uranus. Very unlikely, but you never know. That's what the agnostic atheists believe. But the value of hell is minus infinity, meaning it is infinitely bad. So the probability is dx, which is an infinitely small number, but the value of the random variable is -inf. Now, if the probability of hell is dx, then the probability of anything else is 100%-dx or 1-dx. Anything else is most likely non-existent, but it's also the possibility of some other afterlife, like heaven or something else which could be good or bad. If we say that the nonexistence has a value of x, which is a real positive number, and that the value of anything else minus hell has an expected value of y, which is a real number which could be positive or negative depentend on the propabilities of different afterlifes which are unknown, then the total value is x+y with a propability of 1-dx. (x and y are real non infinite numbers because of the premise of the assymetry argument. Nor heaven or non-existence have infinite value). So the total expected value is (1-dx)*(x+y)+dx*(-inf) which is approximately ≈(x+y)-inf*dx where (x+y) is a real number which could be positive or negative, and -inf*dx which is undefined. So the total expected value is undefined. So the risk of suicide is undefined and therefore it's an irrational decision. To put it in more understandable words, its like opening a box, where there is no limit on how bad the item inside can be. This possibility of limitless disaster is what makes suicide irrational, even if the probability of such disaster is extremely low. I dont know if my theory makes any sense. I often make theories that I later revoke. But I wanted to share this one.

Long story short: the possibility of hell makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

Do not think of hell as in the traditional Christian form. Its just the limit of how bad the afterlife can get. Just keep in mind that the uncertainty of what comes after death is so wide that the worst possible outcome is possible, and that makes death scary enough to be avoided, even if the probability of such outcome is extremely low.
View attachment 166574
The asymmetry argument:
View attachment 166575

Your first unwarranted assumption is that dying by suicide means you will go to hell, if hell exists. If you slip arbitrary assumptions into your reasoning, you can "prove" anything you want.
If you are going to play philosophical games, at least try to do it properly.

 

[Carrot]

1. You still didn't adress other potential possiblities.

Let's say the only choices are:
Nothing after death vs Heaven/Hell

Nothing after death is 99% chance
Heaven/Hell is 1% chance. Or any tiny number above 0%.

	You follow Christian rules	You don't follow Christian rules
Nothing happens after death	0 (neutral)	0 (Neutral)
Heaven/Hell exists	PLUS Infinity value (You go to heaven)	MINUS Infinity value (You to go hell)

If these are the only options, you are correct - it is better to follow Christian rules, just in case, just to avoid hell, however improbable it may be. This raises another question, if God is all knowing, would God allow these kind of people into heaven though? That only believed out of fear of hell, just in case, selfishly?


2. Maybe there is no Heaven/Hell, but something else?
Nothing after death vs You access Valhalla if you died in combat, otherwise you go to some terrible Hel. (I'm not stricly adhering to Norse mythology here)

	You died in combat	You did not die in combat
Nothing happens after death	0 (neutral)	0 (neutral)
Valhalla/Hel exist	PLUS Infinity value (You go to Valhalla)	MINUS Infinity value (You to go Hel)

This is unlikely, but it is one of the many possibilities. Now I'm not sure if I should follow Christianity or die in combat.

3. Or maybe something else?
Let's say the only choices are:
Nothing after death vs You need three gummy bears in your hand at the moment of death to access some teleporter that grants you access to some place of eternal hapiness. Nobody else can share gummy bears with you, you either hand them when you died or not. Otherwise the teleporter keeps shocking you with eletricity forever.
Nothing after death is 99% chance
Other case is 1% chance. Or any tiny number above 0%.

	You have 3 gummy bears	You don't have 3 gummy bears
Nothing after death	0 (neutral)	0 (neutral)
Teleporter exists	PLUS Infinity value (You go to a place of eternal happiness)	MINUS Infinity value (You just stand at the teleporter for eternity)

4. We have no idea what happens after death. We would need to take every single possible case (of which probability we know nothing about) and analyse them, they would often contradict each other.

Maybe nothing happens.
Maybe Heaven/Hell exists.
Maybe Valhalla/Hel exists.
Maybe you need to be a bully in real life, strive for power, never show weakness. Maybe our life on Earth is a test to weed out the weak, and the most powerful of us get eternal hapinness.
Maybe those who commit suicide go to some place of eternal hapiness because this was just a test who figures out this bullshit, if you don't figure it out during your lifetime then sucks to be you.
Maybe you need 3 gummy bears for a teleporter.
Maybe you need 4 gummy bears for a teleporter.
Maybe you need 5 gummy bears for a teleporter.
Maybe at least 2 of the gummy bears have to be gluten free.
Maybe there is reincarnation.

I have no idea what happens after death. And neither do you. You are currently in point #1, that's fine. That's only one of the infinite posibilities what might happen after death. You still didn't adress other potential possiblities.

 

[anonymouswebuser]

I will attempt to prove mathematically, using probability theory and calculus, on why suicide might be a poor decision. I swear i don't do crack. This might be a whole lot of bullshit that i would want to delete afterwards, but yolo. I believe that this place is open to different perspectives and welcomes discussion for and against suicide. Also, I will assume two philosophical ideas. Agnostic atheism, and asymmetry of pain and pleasure. I figured that I can prove that suicide is irrational even without the asymmetry argument, but the maths are more complex, and i strive to keep it simple. So here we go:
Assume that there is an infinitely small probability for hell. Just as likely for a teapot to be orbiting Uranus. Very unlikely, but you never know. That's what the agnostic atheists believe. But the value of hell is minus infinity, meaning it is infinitely bad. So the probability is dx, which is an infinitely small number, but the value of the random variable is -inf. Now, if the probability of hell is dx, then the probability of anything else is 100%-dx or 1-dx. Anything else is most likely non-existent, but it's also the possibility of some other afterlife, like heaven or something else which could be good or bad. If we say that the nonexistence has a value of x, which is a real positive number, and that the value of anything else minus hell has an expected value of y, which is a real number which could be positive or negative depentend on the propabilities of different afterlifes which are unknown, then the total value is x+y with a propability of 1-dx. (x and y are real non infinite numbers because of the premise of the assymetry argument. Nor heaven or non-existence have infinite value). So the total expected value is (1-dx)*(x+y)+dx*(-inf) which is approximately ≈(x+y)-inf*dx where (x+y) is a real number which could be positive or negative, and -inf*dx which is undefined. So the total expected value is undefined. So the risk of suicide is undefined and therefore it's an irrational decision. To put it in more understandable words, its like opening a box, where there is no limit on how bad the item inside can be. This possibility of limitless disaster is what makes suicide irrational, even if the probability of such disaster is extremely low. I dont know if my theory makes any sense. I often make theories that I later revoke. But I wanted to share this one.

Long story short: the possibility of hell makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

Do not think of hell as in the traditional Christian form. Its just the limit of how bad the afterlife can get. Just keep in mind that the uncertainty of what comes after death is so wide that the worst possible outcome is possible, and that makes death scary enough to be avoided, even if the probability of such outcome is extremely low.
View attachment 166574
The asymmetry argument:
View attachment 166575

I totally understand your theory and I definitely did not ask chatgpt to explain to me as if I were a 10-year-old.... <3

jokes aside,
but sometimes when things are so fucked up it makes you enter a trance-like state where you can't even think about the consequences that you're willing to gamble your fate after death you just want an escape right this moment (mostly in this case the person who attempts doesn't have a plan but just goes right with it), some are just courageous enough to try because they're tired and they don't think anything worse could happen to them and finally some strongly believe in their perspective of what comes after death so they're willing to attempt

but nice effort i would never be this passionate about mathematics the moment i finish my educational career

 

[imOK]

I appreciate that you understand what i'm saying, and i appreciate your critique.

There's really not a lot I can add to it. (I will get slightly more mathematical and scientific now, I'm sorry readers)

Therefore, we should be afraid of death and avoid it if possible.

This assumes suicide uniquely triggers hell, but again: the agnostic framework provides no basis for privileging suicide over other actions. If hell's existence is speculative, its connection to specific actions (suicide vs. eating breakfast) is equally speculative. To claim suicide "directly" leads to hell requires theological assumptions inconsistent with agnostic atheism. Without evidence, the risk of hell applies to all actions, not just suicide. If infinitesimal probabilities matter, then all decisions carry infinite risk, making paralysis, not suicide avoidance, the only "rational" choice. This is absurd.

asymmetry argument

Again: This is arbitrary. If we assign hell a probability (dx) and value (-infty), symmetry demands we assign heaven (dx) and (+infty). The expected utility becomes:

(1 - dx)(x + y) + dx(-infty + +infty)

The term ( -infty + +infty) is undefined, collapsing the calculation into meaninglessness. You cannot selectively ignore positive infinities without violating agnosticism. The "asymmetry" here is an unsupported assertion, not a mathematical or philosophical axiom.

I assign non existence a positive value

This is subjective. If life is net suffering, non-existence might be preferable (as argued by Benatar's asymmetry). However, if (x) is finite and hell's risk is ( -infty times dx ), the calculation remains:

Expected Value = Finite Value + Undefined Risk

An undefined result cannot rationally favor either choice. For someone in relentless torment, the certainty of suffering may dominate the undefined risk of hell. Dismissing this as "irrational" ignores all nuance.

We know nothing

This misapplies epistemic humility. Agnosticism does not require assigning equal consideration to all imaginable claims.

By your logic, we must also assign non-zero probabilities to:
- Afterlives where suicide is rewarded infinitely.
- Universes where dying unlocks utopia.
- "Anti-hells" that punish you for not committing suicide.

Assigning non-zero probabilities to infinitely many speculative outcomes is mathematically impossible (as you probably know, probabilities must sum to 1). So pragmatically, we dismiss unfalsifiable claims (teapots in space) not because they're impossible, but because they're irrelevant to decision-making without evidence. Hell is no different.

It should be last resort. Can we agree on that?

This is a moral stance, not a mathematical one. If life's suffering is certain and extreme, while hell's risk is undefined, the decision hinges on whether "Undefined risks" should be treated as prohibitive (your view) or "Certain suffering" outweighs speculative, unquantifiable risks (my view). I can give you at the very most that neither position is provably "correct." but yours is a value judgment, not the logical imperative you present it as.

While the fear of hell might feel compelling to you, it cannot be rigorously proven to make suicide irrational, as you stated. The decision ultimately rests on subjective valuations of life's suffering vs. unquantifiable, speculative risks and that is a deeply personal choice, not a mathematical certainty.

 

[getoutgirl]

cool n all but counterpoint:

 

[Electra]

Found you!

 

[bankai]

Found you!

What do you mean found him? He's around. He's the friendly neighborhood cat.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

There is a probability of hell but only while a human is alive.

And the suffering can go to Infinity in that hell while living in this world. Even if that probability is low why should I take a chance of falling into an unimaginable nightmare when there is no meaning to life and we are all going to die anyway.

But for some people the probability of extreme torture while trying to live is high .

For every human the probability of extreme suffering is non zero can happen. 1.6 million people in the U.S. attempt suicide per year showing how horrible life is

The probability of an imaginary supernatural hell after a human's brain dies is zero. What afterlife can chemical reactions, cells a machine have ? None

The only hell is here on earth living as a human or other sentient animal

There is pain or suffering so bad it's a trillion times worse than the worst u can imagine. But only while alive. Only non-existence forever can guarantee never suffering like that

 

[Electra]

What do you mean found him? He's around. He's the friendly neighborhood cat.

I do this game when I see him posting, I reply with "Found you" haha. I just randomly thought of doing that. I was away from SS a bit, but now when I'm back - I continued my own little game lol

 

[Electra]

Is sasu compromised or something now?

But like fr I thought the same thing. I was like "there's no way I'm on sasu rn" lol

 

[bankai]

I do this game when I see him posting, I reply with "Found you" haha. I just randomly thought of doing that. I was away from SS a bit, but now when I'm back - I continued my own little game lol

Don't be a scaredy cat @Pluto .we want to find you.don't hide please

 

[Electra]

Don't be a scaredy cat @Pluto .we want to find you.don't hide please

Yeah @Pluto Come out wherever you are! I need the friendly neighborhood cat now than ever!

 

[DOHARDTHINGS24]

Omg!
Logged out for the night, still mad about this shit (when I am not the poster girl for SaSu, I despise the absolute shit out of it - when like seeks like - genuine seeks genuine, pain seeks pain, empathy seeks empathy, fucking trolls seek trolls - I don't believe the use of the word of irrational in a maths debate to be anything other than trolling) - I try very hard to only say kind or helpful things, but I am human & fail & today is a hard day (mother's day in my land with dead mother, not looking for sympathy, trying to justify the lack of remorse over being angry...)
BUT, the point is (& apolpgies it always takes so long) is that I logged back in SPECIFICALLY to say that until you contributed a meme, the matter simply could not be settled & I could not sleep a wink. And here you are!!!!
So thank you, I'm still really annoyed, I know there was never a pure time here, so I can't try & campaign for let's make SaSu great again - the best I can hope for is that on a better day I don't engage with this shit, I just move the fuck along, which is my normal advice. And knowing how limited & sacred my time is here, & that I always regret wasting it on energy vampires, I hope all you mofo's that engage in this or any other faux debate, truly has the time to spare on this, that it doesn't cost you, the way it costs me.
But mostly, thanks for the
meme-ories & making me smile on a not-smiley day. I will attempt to come back sunnier or more
ignore-ier, whichever is more achievable.
May my usual gratitude resume after this intermission, that I let into a weak spot on a weak day (if I can claim a few days, even better. Can't tell the difference between real & justified anger & real life Big Feelings getting in the way)
Oh ffs tl:dr - was gonna request meme from you, you beat me to it, thank you & goodnight. Again.

 

[AreWeWinning]

I will attempt to prove mathematically, using probability theory and calculus, on why suicide might be a poor decision. I swear i don't do crack. This might be a whole lot of bullshit that i would want to delete afterwards, but yolo. I believe that this place is open to different perspectives and welcomes discussion for and against suicide. Also, I will assume two philosophical ideas. Agnostic atheism, and asymmetry of pain and pleasure. I figured that I can prove that suicide is irrational even without the asymmetry argument, but the maths are more complex, and i strive to keep it simple. So here we go:
Assume that there is an infinitely small probability for hell. Just as likely for a teapot to be orbiting Uranus. Very unlikely, but you never know. That's what the agnostic atheists believe. But the value of hell is minus infinity, meaning it is infinitely bad. So the probability is dx, which is an infinitely small number, but the value of the random variable is -inf. Now, if the probability of hell is dx, then the probability of anything else is 100%-dx or 1-dx. Anything else is most likely non-existent, but it's also the possibility of some other afterlife, like heaven or something else which could be good or bad. If we say that the nonexistence has a value of x, which is a real positive number, and that the value of anything else minus hell has an expected value of y, which is a real number which could be positive or negative depentend on the propabilities of different afterlifes which are unknown, then the total value is x+y with a propability of 1-dx. (x and y are real non infinite numbers because of the premise of the assymetry argument. Nor heaven or non-existence have infinite value). So the total expected value is (1-dx)*(x+y)+dx*(-inf) which is approximately ≈(x+y)-inf*dx where (x+y) is a real number which could be positive or negative, and -inf*dx which is undefined. So the total expected value is undefined. So the risk of suicide is undefined and therefore it's an irrational decision. To put it in more understandable words, its like opening a box, where there is no limit on how bad the item inside can be. This possibility of limitless disaster is what makes suicide irrational, even if the probability of such disaster is extremely low. I dont know if my theory makes any sense. I often make theories that I later revoke. But I wanted to share this one.

Long story short: the possibility of hell makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

Do not think of hell as in the traditional Christian form. Its just the limit of how bad the afterlife can get. Just keep in mind that the uncertainty of what comes after death is so wide that the worst possible outcome is possible, and that makes death scary enough to be avoided, even if the probability of such outcome is extremely low.
View attachment 166574
The asymmetry argument:
View attachment 166575

I don't fully understand the mathematics, but why do you consider hell infinitely bad but not heaven infinitely good? That doesn't make sense. Either both or neither should be infinite. They balance each other out. And in that sense, it's a coinflip. 50-50 on whether the outcome is good or bad.

Also, it reminds me of the phenomenon called ambiguity aversion. People always tend to choose the option where the odds are more defined, even if the overall expected value is lower for that option. In life, we are familiar with our odds of being happy or unhappy. The odds of what comes after death is undefined. Thus, people are naturally averse to it.

In the end, it all comes down to belief. For those who believe there is nothing after death, no philosophy or mathematics matters, no matter how simple or complex they are.

 

[SilentSadness]

There is an equal chance of a hell where suicidal people go as a hell where non suicidal people go. The "asymmetry argument" assumes either Christianity or atheism. Also, your maths is incorrect from the start because infinity is not a number that can be used in calculations. Also, the fact that an action could cause a catastrophe doesn't make it irrational to do the action no matter how bad the catastrophe (see driving a car). So this entire post while cute is asinine.