Discussion Uncertainty and death

[Johnzaga23]

I made a post about a mathematical proof against death (and suicide) and i got a lot of negative response for being nonsensical, hard to understand, "anti choice propaganda" from fanatics. So i will post a more comprehensive explanation in laymans terms in the philosophy topic as someone suggested. So here we go:

Imagine that theres a box. This box most likely has nothing inside. But theres a tiny possibility that it has something, good or bad. Usually, theres a limit on how bad or good things can get. At worse, there could be a spider in the box. At best, there could be a 5'2 Latina gf. But imagine that theres no limit. Inside the box, there could be the worse imaginable thing possible, or there could be the best thing possible. Mathematically, at least, even if there's a tiny propability of such outcome, that unlimited possibility of disaster makes any risk assessment undefinable. You simply cannot determine if death is a risk worth taking or not. Such a risk, with such an amplitude of outcomes, becomes a highly avoidable risk. Therefore, death, despite its inevitability, should be avoided, because taking such risk is not mathematically sound.

The best argument against that ive heard is that death is inevitable, therefore it doesn't matter if you take the risk now or then. But i say that what matters is the now. What matters is what you do NOW. You wouldn't stop watching a movie to watch the next one, if the next one could be the worst movie imaginable. We should appreciate the relative peacefulness there is on earth compared to the possibility of the worst suffering possible.

People call me a fed or a troll. I just went out from the psych ward because I said everything to my therapist. I stood in the chair and put the noose around my neck, but i didn't kick the chair, because there's still a healthy part inside me. Im now trying to recover and find a reason to live. If i dont reply to you, its because my drugs that they gave me make me hyperactive and i cannot concentrate.

People called me disgusting troll. Whats disgusting is the fanatic long term users with 1000 score who still haven't CTB yet and do not accept anything that goes against their beliefs. Im not anti choice. I believe that every person should decide for themselves. Im just making an argument.

 

[Carrot]

1. Elephant in the room
I love talking about thought experiments of any kind, however there are two problems here:
1. Mods closed the previous topic you are clearly referring to; and you keep bringing it up. I don't think the topic should have been closed, but I can respect their decision.
2. You did not address many of the thoughtful and nice responses there, so it was difficult to talk with you.


2. Opening the box analysis

Imagine that theres a box. This box most likely has nothing inside. But theres a tiny possibility that it has something, good or bad. Usually, theres a limit on how bad or good things can get. At worse, there could be a spider in the box. At best, there could be a 5'2 Latina gf. But imagine that theres no limit. Inside the box, there could be the worse imaginable thing possible, or there could be the best thing possible. Mathematically, at least, even if there's a tiny propability of such outcome, (...)

I'm with you so far. Some people like spiders, but it obviously symbolises something negative, which can be different from person to person. Somebody might not want a 5'2 Latina gf, but obviously it is supposed to symbolise something positive. Just a sanity check here.

Mathematically, at least, even if there's a tiny propability of such outcome, that unlimited possibility of disaster makes any risk assessment undefinable.

I'm not sure if I understand this part. But if there are unlimited possibilities.. Then it's hard to assess the risk. Makes sense intuitivly. Remember the box can also have something good with also makes it hard to assess the overall value of opening the box, but maybe that isn't important for the thought experiment. Let's continue.

You simply cannot determine if death is a risk worth taking or not.

You lost me here. I expected a question like 'Would you open the box? Why? Why not?" I would not open the box, by the way, but that's another story.
Anyway, you jump in with mention of death and consider it a risk. I think that you are trying to say that dying is like opening this box, the box is supposed to represent death? I might be wrong, there seems to be some jump in logic or maybe I am missing something.

Such a risk, with such an amplitude of outcomes, becomes a highly avoidable risk. Therefore, death, despite its inevitability, should be avoided, because taking such risk is not mathematically sound.

Now I'm pretty sure opening the box is symbolizing death of some sort.

Why open the box (commit suicide), when you will automatically open the box (die) at some point anyway?
I can think of a few reasons.
1. You can't calculate the value of the box, so you just ignore the evaluation part of the box and focus on things that you can evaluate. You compare "Would you prefer to open the uncertain box now or in 40 years?". Since you are going to open the box at some point anyway, decide if it's better to open it now or in 40 years (or however much you have left).

Since you don't know the value of box and there is no way to know, you compare:
Value of your life from now until you die + Value of Box
vs
Committing suicide + Value of Box

Which can be simplified, you compare:
Value of your life from now until you die
vs
Committing suicide

Imagine happiness of a person to be represented by a number.
When you are born the happiness score is 0.
You go throught your life, you discover ice cream, that was pretty cool, you happiness score increases by 10.
You get a F on your test, that decreases your score by 5.
You kiss soembody for the first time, score increases by 30.
People like different things, so the score can be different from person to person. Eating chicken might give +10 score for someone, but -20 for somebody. And it's not like you can eat chicken all day to cheat the system and keep gaining score. Eating 24 chickens in a day doesn't give you +240 score.
I think it's clear.
Then you are 20 years old. Your score is, let's say 24560. Pretty good life, huh?
That's 24560/20=1228 positive score per year.
But then, you get some uncureable disease. Yikes. Maybe war starts in your country. The score just keeps going down and you predict that it will keep going down.
You are now 21 years old. War is still going, people die. It's not that you don't have enjoyment from life, you do. You also have a lot of pain. It is up to a every person to determine what they evaluate their score.
Your current score is 13250. You lost like half your score in a year.
You can see some hope (20% chance you will survive the war), (40% you will be sent to the frontlife and die), (40% you will be captured and tortured). Of course there are a lot of cases here. You don't know the probability of every case and the value of every case. But it is significantly easier to decide the value of continuing living vs commiting suicide over.

2. There is also one more interesting case.
What if commiting suicide gives you a different box than dying naturally for whatever reason? Maybe there are infinite amount of boxes, depending on type of death, time of death, age and/or other parameters? We basically shift have the same problem all over again.
Value of your life from now until you die + Value of Box Of Natural Death
vs
Committing suicide + Value of Box Of Suicide

Maybe the boxes are different.
Maybe the Value of Box Of Natural Death only has positive things. Maybe it only has negative things, maybe it has a different distribution of rewards.
Maybe the Value of Box Of Suicide only has positive things. Maybe it only has negative things, maybe it has a different distribution of rewards.
Since we cannot evaluate that at all, we just focus on evaluting things that we actually can evaluate, so back to point 1, we treat value of box as 0.

Don't assume that box of natural death is better than box of suicide. We don't know. Maybe it is better, maybe it's worse, we don't know. We are unable to evaluate it. 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 you go to a place of eternal pain. It's one of the infinite possibilities.


3. A word about trolling
I personally don't really care about trolling, it doesn't change my evalution. I approach everybody in good faith and patience.
If it's genuine, the person asking and/or person answering can learn something. Sometimes one of them might have made a mistake somewhere and others should be able to politely point them out. Sometimes the truth is objective (especially in math), sometimes subjective. I find it interesting to hear about other viewpoints.
If it's not genuine (trolling), I still get some interesting thought experiment. At a point in future, somebody might genuinely have that question/thought experiment and will gladly read about it.

 

[Johnzaga23]

1. Elephant in the room
I love talking about thought experiments of any kind, however there are two problems here:
1. Mods closed the previous topic you are clearly referring to; and you keep bringing it up. I don't think the topic should have been closed, but I can respect their decision.
2. You did not address many of the thoughtful and nice responses there, so it was difficult to talk with you.


2. Opening the box analysis


I'm with you so far. Some people like spiders, but it obviously symbolises something negative, which can be different from person to person. Somebody might not want a 5'2 Latina gf, but obviously it is supposed to symbolise something positive. Just a sanity check here.


I'm not sure if I understand this part. But if there are unlimited possibilities.. Then it's hard to assess the risk. Makes sense intuitivly. Remember the box can also have something good with also makes it hard to assess the overall value of opening the box, but maybe that isn't important for the thought experiment. Let's continue.


You lost me here. I expected a question like 'Would you open the box? Why? Why not?" I would not open the box, by the way, but that's another story.
Anyway, you jump in with mention of death and consider it a risk. I think that you are trying to say that dying is like opening this box, the box is supposed to represent death? I might be wrong, there seems to be some jump in logic or maybe I am missing something.

Now I'm pretty sure opening the box is symbolizing death of some sort.

Why open the box (commit suicide), when you will automatically open the box (die) at some point anyway?
I can think of a few reasons.
1. You can't calculate the value of the box, so you just ignore the evaluation part of the box and focus on things that you can evaluate. You compare "Would you prefer to open the uncertain box now or in 40 years?". Since you are going to open the box at some point anyway, decide if it's better to open it now or in 40 years (or however much you have left).

Since you don't know the value of box and there is no way to know, you compare:
Value of your life from now until you die + Value of Box
vs
Committing suicide + Value of Box

Which can be simplified, you compare:
Value of your life from now until you die
vs
Committing suicide

Imagine happiness of a person to be represented by a number.
When you are born the happiness score is 0.
You go throught your life, you discover ice cream, that was pretty cool, you happiness score increases by 10.
You get a F on your test, that decreases your score by 5.
You kiss soembody for the first time, score increases by 30.
People like different things, so the score can be different from person to person. Eating chicken might give +10 score for someone, but -20 for somebody. And it's not like you can eat chicken all day to cheat the system and keep gaining score. Eating 24 chickens in a day doesn't give you +240 score.
I think it's clear.
Then you are 20 years old. Your score is, let's say 24560. Pretty good life, huh?
That's 24560/20=1228 positive score per year.
But then, you get some uncureable disease. Yikes. Maybe war starts in your country. The score just keeps going down and you predict that it will keep going down.
You are now 21 years old. War is still going, people die. It's not that you don't have enjoyment from life, you do. You also have a lot of pain. It is up to a every person to determine what they evaluate their score.
Your current score is 13250. You lost like half your score in a year.
You can see some hope (20% chance you will survive the war), (40% you will be sent to the frontlife and die), (40% you will be captured and tortured). Of course there are a lot of cases here. You don't know the probability of every case and the value of every case. But it is significantly easier to decide the value of continuing living vs commiting suicide over.

2. There is also one more interesting case.
What if commiting suicide gives you a different box than dying naturally for whatever reason? Maybe there are infinite amount of boxes, depending on type of death, time of death, age and/or other parameters? We basically shift have the same problem all over again.
Value of your life from now until you die + Value of Box Of Natural Death
vs
Committing suicide + Value of Box Of Suicide

Maybe the boxes are different.
Maybe the Value of Box Of Natural Death only has positive things. Maybe it only has negative things, maybe it has a different distribution of rewards.
Maybe the Value of Box Of Suicide only has positive things. Maybe it only has negative things, maybe it has a different distribution of rewards.
Since we cannot evaluate that at all, we just focus on evaluting things that we actually can evaluate, so back to point 1, we treat value of box as 0.

Don't assume that box of natural death is better than box of suicide. We don't know. Maybe it is better, maybe it's worse, we don't know. We are unable to evaluate it. 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 you go to a place of eternal pain. It's one of the infinite possibilities.


3. A word about trolling
I personally don't really care about trolling, it doesn't change my evalution. I approach everybody in good faith and patience.
If it's genuine, the person asking and/or person answering can learn something. Sometimes one of them might have made a mistake somewhere and others should be able to politely point them out. Sometimes the truth is objective (especially in math), sometimes subjective. I find it interesting to hear about other viewpoints.
If it's not genuine (trolling), I still get some interesting thought experiment. At a point in future, somebody might genuinely have that question/thought experiment and will gladly read about it.

Thank you for replying. The reason i do not reply too often is because of the medicine I get. But i will make an effort to reply to your very interesting comments.

I think that the point is that the box (death) should be avoided and not seeked. If we could theoretically achieve immortality in this world, it would be something to look forward to. I understand that this is not going to happen any time soon and that death is inevitable, but the problem is that we should not focus on the big picture, but we shoudl focus on what to do now. Camus said drink coffee or suicide. Choose to drink coffee. But why not choose to suicide? because its more risky than coffee. Maybe im just trying to enrich Camus by adding the factor of uncertainty to absurdity.

Sorry for not giving a better answer to your brilliant questions. You are better than me. If you accept my premice to look at the present rather than the bigger picture, then maybe i could convince you. Otherwise, you won. Obviously there's no easy anwsers to such a complicated topic. Sorry for not saying anything more interesting. Thank you.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Yes, I've had this thought process. Shouldn't we still be afraid of a potentially psychopathic God and their hell fire retribution, even if we don't have concrete evidence they exist?

It seems reasonable to me to wonder if they do exist- given that we don't have concrete evidence to the contrary. So much remains a mystery about life. Plus, a genius playing hide and seek will never be found. Maybe we'll never have the technology to detect God.

Maybe they want it that way. They seem to like faith. There's no need for faith if there's concrete evidence. Having shitty evidence and evidence to the contrary is the ultimate test of faith. So hypothetically speaking- that scenario seems possible to me.

If there is a God and they created this world, I 100% believe they could be sadistic enough to have also created a hell and gleefully condemn 'good' people to it. That also seems reasonable, observing this world and the religious texts we have.

Where your argument falls down about suicide specifically is this: You're making the assumption that suicide is the ultimate act that sends us to hell. How do you know this? What if it's eating pork or shellfish or, blaspheming too many times? Having sex before marriage? Showing your shoulders in public? Drinking alcholol? Engaging in homosexual acts? Doubting the existence of God? How do you know many of us haven't already been condemned to hell? How are you sure it's 'safe' to do anything in life and not be blacklisted?

The argument I imagine is: Don't suicide because you may end up suffering more. You must agree though, that's based on an unknown outcome. You don't know for sure that hell even exists. You don't know that suicude sends you there. You don't know how bad it might be.

Let's take some things about humans that we do actually know for a fact. The human body is prone to over 26,000 diseases. Natural death I can assure you- isn't always peaceful. If you've ever witnessed someone dying of cancer, even surviving well into old age- it looks hellish! These are things we can actually physically witness. They're not a certainty for everyone but, some of us may well experience them and, seeing as many of our governments are too retarded to spare us that misery, we may be too ill to travel for assisted suicide when life becomes that bad.

Personally, I think I'm willing to risk hell to avoid that. Seeing as I'm most likely going there anyway. (Seeing as I hate God.)

Also, in case I'm one of the 'disgusting, fanatic' long time users you're refering to- with 1000's of posts and no attempt yet, that's because I'm waiting for my Dad to die first. Not that anyone needs to defend not being dead yet!

I like to think I would actually be flexible to change my opinions if they became too dogmatic. The arguments need to make sense though. Plus- one thing that puts me and I imagine a lot of others off is when other members present their theories as facts. That tends to suggest to me that it is in fact the OP that has immutable beliefs that they won't back down on. Do you think anyone could change your mind or, are you certain you are right?

 

[Carrot]

(...) But i will make an effort to reply to your very interesting comments.
(...)
Sorry for not giving a better answer to your brilliant questions. You are better than me. (...) Otherwise, you won.

You completely misjudge my intentions. It is not my goal to be better than others (whatever that is supposed to mean - I am better at certain things, and worse at other things, just like anybody else), it is not my goal to humiliate, to make fun of, I don't gain pleasure from humiliating anybody. It's not about bullying somebody into having another opinion. It's not about winning.

It is my goal to work towards truth. If it turns out that I'm wrong, I'm fine with that, I'll learn something and move on. I have been wrong before about things and I will be wrong about things in the future. If I feel I know enough about something, I speak about it very passionately. I'm aware the way I say talk is arrogant- but I'm willing to be proven wrong, I'm open to change my mind when provided with appropriate facts and evidence.

I wish that the internet (and not only the internet) was a place where anybody can discuss any topic with anybody in a civil manner, without any insults. And if the answer to the topic is objective, that makes it easier. Sometimes the answer is not obvious or subjective.

If you accept my premice to look at the present rather than the bigger picture, then maybe i could convince you. Otherwise, you won. Obviously there's no easy anwsers to such a complicated topic. Sorry for not saying anything more interesting. Thank you.

You can convince me by pointing out flaws in my logic. I have no idea what "If you accept my premice to look at the present rather than the bigger picture" means, you never brought that up before, what does this have to do with the discussion? And, once again, it's not about winning.

 

[Johnzaga23]

You completely misjudge my intentions. It is not my goal to be better than others (whatever that is supposed to mean - I am better at certain things, and worse at other things, just like anybody else), it is not my goal to humiliate, to make fun of, I don't gain pleasure from humiliating anybody. It's not about bullying somebody into having another opinion. It's not about winning.

It is my goal to work towards truth. If it turns out that I'm wrong, I'm fine with that, I'll learn something and move on. I have been wrong before about things and I will be wrong about things in the future. If I feel I know enough about something, I speak about it very passionately. I'm aware the way I say talk is arrogant- but I'm willing to be proven wrong, I'm open to change my mind when provided with appropriate facts and evidence.

I wish that the internet (and not only the internet) was a place where anybody can discuss any topic with anybody in a civil manner, without any insults. And if the answer to the topic is objective, that makes it easier. Sometimes the answer is not obvious or subjective.


You can convince me by pointing out flaws in my logic. I have no idea what "If you accept my premice to look at the present rather than the bigger picture" means, you never brought that up before, what does this have to do with the discussion? And, once again, it's not about winning.

oh no youre misunderstanding my comment. I didn't mean to say that youre better sarcastically. I ment it as a compliment. youre better at me in philosophy, and i admit that i have a hard time upholding to your standard. I do not have ego, or at least i try not to, because its pointless. 99% of philosophy is wrong and 99% of my theories are wrong.

Anyways, youre presending a fatalistic argument, if thats the right word to say, about death being inevitable therefore it doesn't matter whether one dies now or later. But i suggest to have a different perspective. To see things now and decide whether death is the appropriate risk for now. Like, should you drink coffee, or die? Drinking coffee is less risky than death. But if you dont accept this theory, which i understand if you don't, then you won me. And i don't say this sarcastically. You may actually disprove my theory and the discussion can end here.

 

[Carrot]

(...) but the problem is that we should not focus on the big picture, but we shoudl focus on what to do now. Camus said drink coffee or suicide. Choose to drink coffee. But why not choose to suicide? because its more risky than coffee. Maybe im just trying to enrich Camus by adding the factor of uncertainty to absurdity.

Anyways, youre presending a fatalistic argument, if thats the right word to say, about death being inevitable therefore it doesn't matter whether one dies now or later. But i suggest to have a different perspective. To see things now and decide whether death is the appropriate risk for now. Like, should you drink coffee, or die? Drinking coffee is less risky than death. But if you dont accept this theory, which i understand if you don't, then you won me. And i don't say this sarcastically. You may actually disprove my theory and the discussion can end here.

I don't know anything about Camus, but I think I understand what you meant a bit more. It's possible I needed a "win" to snap out of a certain state (which is not why I do it and I still believe in what I wrote, but I do feel snapped out of a certain state). I imagine you patting me on my head "Fine. You win. Now can you please consider this.". I didn't come here expecting to learn something.

Instead of comparing
[Estimated value of your life from now until you die] vs [Suicide now]

We can compare
[Some nearby, short timeframe, now, drinking coffee, petting your dog] vs [Suicide now]

The change is so simple. If we frame it this way, then absolutely, it's better to drink coffee.

I know almost nothing about what I'm going to say, but I heard some stuff about Buddhism, Meditation, "now", "being in the moment". This might be related or similar to what you speak about. I knew that the concept of "just be" is so popular, but I never heard anybody explaining why it can work, or thought about why it would work. This might help explain it at least partially, this is disturbingly soothing.

There are definitely ways to improve ones mindset, thinking, life if they choose to try. What you mention is likely one of the ways and I'm glad you shared your perspective/way of looking at it. I'd should write more here about this but don't feel like writing it at the moment.

I see a lot of people doing incredibly brave things, like traveling to active war zones. For me that is unbelievable, but maybe assign different values and estimated probabilities to things. The "now" almost sounds like a manipulative trick on your brain. I personally can't stop thinking about the possibility of a rocket hitting hitting nearby and shattering pieces of glass/metal into my body. That's not "now". but when it is about to happen then it might be too late to commit suicide. It's difficult to think of "now" when the future looks incredibly bleak. It is possible for future looking so terribly bad that no "coffee now" is going to fix it. Some people have no idea how terrible things are in some parts of the world. That said, plenty of people live their lives during war as well, which is fascinating. The sad thing is that so many wars are preventable. I'm not going to ramble on it now.