|
On April 01 2015 09:36 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 09:00 farvacola wrote:On April 01 2015 08:34 Djzapz wrote:
A while ago I was at a barcraft event thing and at the end of the night I was pretty drunk and I saw a guy carry his friend down the stairs and I thought they were fucking around and said something like "you guys are so cute" or something dumb like that. It was not meant to be insulting. In my drunk head I was just participating in the big nonsense joke. Outside of the venue, I noticed that the guy who was being carried was in a wheelchair.
I didn't go apologize or anything, because it was pretty loud and I wasn't even sure they heard me. I don't know just how shitty it was of me but I still have nightmares (almost literally) about it. Am I horrible? Do you have a prior history of ridiculing the disabled and those who assist them? How drunk were you? Did it impair your decision making ability? Was the stairwell well lit or was it dimly lit? -I have no prior history of ridiculing the disabled or people who assist them. I would never do that. -I was drunk enough that I definitely couldn't drive. Not sure how impaired my decisionmaking was but I wasn't completely batshit stupid. Just pretty dumb. I've been much much worse (but it really isn't the norm, I'm an an alcoholic) -I have no reliable memory of the stairwell's lighting, but if memory does serve, it wasn't dark, nor well lit.
You're probably not horrible. 
|
On April 01 2015 09:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
is there any theoretical way to get close to or surpass the speed of light while somehow managing to avoid the problem off time dilation?
Yes, you can prove that Einstein's theories are wrong. Good luck with that!
|
On April 01 2015 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 08:58 Millitron wrote:On April 01 2015 07:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:On April 01 2015 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's nothing to privilege.
What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing. This isn't true because given infinite possibilities, some of those possibilities will require you to choose wrong to receive the reward. I.E. a world in which only non-believers go to heaven. Or even worse, a world in which believers are punished. For every afterlife where a correct guess is rewarded, there is one exactly opposite. I.E. a correct guess is punished. There's no way to hedge your bets or count cards or whatever when the odds are all equal. Only if you assume multiple correct answers. You will always be statistically wrong, but only one will be correct. The presence of opposite options to the correct conclusion does not contradict the correct conclusion. In a random set of N the presence of diametrically opposed options does not negate each other's existence one or the other has been selected. You misunderstand. I'm not saying that the mere existence of opposite options disproves it, I'm saying that there are mutually exclusive options, all of which are equally likely. You can't say that belief in X is a smart decision because you'll receive Y reward if it's equally likely that belief in X will cause you to receive Z punishment. Which is why Pascal's wager is clever in it's attack on atheist-like beliefs. The reward for not believing in an afterlife is nothing. The reward for getting the right guess on a possible afterlife is something. Even if there's an equally likely chance that your choice damns you--if you get it right you at least have something. Pascal didn't care about the results or what was correct. He was asking about making logical presumptions. His flaw was the cost of each action being uneven, but his initial premise remains the same. If nothing happens then there is nothin gained when you die (assuming you were right), you get no reward regardless of being right or wrong. When you choose something, you suddenly get two possible rewards, you are either correct and receive good things, or you are wrong and get no reward. Logically, a chance at getting a reward is worth more than the certainty of not getting a reward.
You don't know that though. The reward for not believing in an afterlife might be a great afterlife. Maybe St. Peter determines who gets into heaven by who wasted the least time and effort trying to get in. And that's equally likely as only believers get into heaven.
Instead of being rewarded for belief, it is possible that you will be rewarded for non-belief. Maybe God doesn't like gullible saps?
|
On April 01 2015 09:49 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 09:36 Djzapz wrote:On April 01 2015 09:00 farvacola wrote:On April 01 2015 08:34 Djzapz wrote:
A while ago I was at a barcraft event thing and at the end of the night I was pretty drunk and I saw a guy carry his friend down the stairs and I thought they were fucking around and said something like "you guys are so cute" or something dumb like that. It was not meant to be insulting. In my drunk head I was just participating in the big nonsense joke. Outside of the venue, I noticed that the guy who was being carried was in a wheelchair.
I didn't go apologize or anything, because it was pretty loud and I wasn't even sure they heard me. I don't know just how shitty it was of me but I still have nightmares (almost literally) about it. Am I horrible? Do you have a prior history of ridiculing the disabled and those who assist them? How drunk were you? Did it impair your decision making ability? Was the stairwell well lit or was it dimly lit? -I have no prior history of ridiculing the disabled or people who assist them. I would never do that. -I was drunk enough that I definitely couldn't drive. Not sure how impaired my decisionmaking was but I wasn't completely batshit stupid. Just pretty dumb. I've been much much worse (but it really isn't the norm, I'm an an alcoholic) -I have no reliable memory of the stairwell's lighting, but if memory does serve, it wasn't dark, nor well lit. You're probably not horrible.
Thanks bro! ^_^
|
On April 01 2015 09:49 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 09:36 Djzapz wrote:On April 01 2015 09:00 farvacola wrote:On April 01 2015 08:34 Djzapz wrote:
A while ago I was at a barcraft event thing and at the end of the night I was pretty drunk and I saw a guy carry his friend down the stairs and I thought they were fucking around and said something like "you guys are so cute" or something dumb like that. It was not meant to be insulting. In my drunk head I was just participating in the big nonsense joke. Outside of the venue, I noticed that the guy who was being carried was in a wheelchair.
I didn't go apologize or anything, because it was pretty loud and I wasn't even sure they heard me. I don't know just how shitty it was of me but I still have nightmares (almost literally) about it. Am I horrible? Do you have a prior history of ridiculing the disabled and those who assist them? How drunk were you? Did it impair your decision making ability? Was the stairwell well lit or was it dimly lit? -I have no prior history of ridiculing the disabled or people who assist them. I would never do that. -I was drunk enough that I definitely couldn't drive. Not sure how impaired my decisionmaking was but I wasn't completely batshit stupid. Just pretty dumb. I've been much much worse (but it really isn't the norm, I'm an an alcoholic) -I have no reliable memory of the stairwell's lighting, but if memory does serve, it wasn't dark, nor well lit. You're probably not horrible.
I have muscular dystrophy. I've been carried down stairs in public quite a few times.
I wouldn't really have minded. It was probably pretty obvious that you were drunk, especially given that this happened at a bar.
|
On April 01 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 08:58 Millitron wrote:On April 01 2015 07:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:On April 01 2015 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's nothing to privilege.
What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing. This isn't true because given infinite possibilities, some of those possibilities will require you to choose wrong to receive the reward. I.E. a world in which only non-believers go to heaven. Or even worse, a world in which believers are punished. For every afterlife where a correct guess is rewarded, there is one exactly opposite. I.E. a correct guess is punished. There's no way to hedge your bets or count cards or whatever when the odds are all equal. Only if you assume multiple correct answers. You will always be statistically wrong, but only one will be correct. The presence of opposite options to the correct conclusion does not contradict the correct conclusion. In a random set of N the presence of diametrically opposed options does not negate each other's existence one or the other has been selected. You misunderstand. I'm not saying that the mere existence of opposite options disproves it, I'm saying that there are mutually exclusive options, all of which are equally likely. You can't say that belief in X is a smart decision because you'll receive Y reward if it's equally likely that belief in X will cause you to receive Z punishment. Which is why Pascal's wager is clever in it's attack on atheist-like beliefs. The reward for not believing in an afterlife is nothing. The reward for getting the right guess on a possible afterlife is something. Even if there's an equally likely chance that your choice damns you--if you get it right you at least have something. Pascal didn't care about the results or what was correct. He was asking about making logical presumptions. His flaw was the cost of each action being uneven, but his initial premise remains the same. If nothing happens then there is nothin gained when you die (assuming you were right), you get no reward regardless of being right or wrong. When you choose something, you suddenly get two possible rewards, you are either correct and receive good things, or you are wrong and get no reward. Logically, a chance at getting a reward is worth more than the certainty of not getting a reward. You don't know that though. The reward for not believing in an afterlife might be a great afterlife. Maybe St. Peter determines who gets into heaven by who wasted the least time and effort trying to get in. And that's equally likely as only believers get into heaven. Instead of being rewarded for belief, it is possible that you will be rewarded for non-belief. Maybe God doesn't like gullible saps?
Yes. It is possible that if the belief in no afterlife is wrong that you will be rewarded anyway. However the belief in no afterlife being correct is that you get nothing--just as Pascal posited, and just as I reiterated. Thank you for being in agreement.
|
No one cares if you are correct. What are you talking about? Seriously. You don't get anything extra by being "correct."
|
On April 01 2015 10:16 IgnE wrote:
No one cares if you are correct. What are you talking about? Seriously. You don't get anything extra by being "correct."
Pascals Wager is completely about being correct and the consequences tha results from it.
If it is true that there is no afterlife--then there is no afterlife and your meaning ceases.
If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked is right--then you are rewarded.
If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked was wrong--then you are punished the same as if you believed there was no afterlife.
All choices are statistically wrong. But there's no reward to being correct should you believe in no afterlife.
The reward for being correct in choosing an afterlife is "something" as opposed to nothing. If you're wrong, you'll receive the same punishment as not believing. This is why Pascal suggests it is logical to at least believe in something to better increase you're chances at a substantive reward should you be correct.
|
|
|
On April 01 2015 10:44 IgnE wrote:
Wow. You can't read.
What did I misread?
|
On April 01 2015 10:44 IgnE wrote:
Wow. You can't read.
we established that around 8 pages earlier already....
|
On April 01 2015 09:52 excitedBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 09:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
is there any theoretical way to get close to or surpass the speed of light while somehow managing to avoid the problem off time dilation? Yes, you can prove that Einstein's theories are wrong. Good luck with that!
another question that's a little similar. any solid theoretical physics attempts at space travel recently? I have a book from 1993 that talks about ramjets, boussard's rocket, arks and the like but was wondering if there's anything more recent
|
On April 01 2015 10:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 10:16 IgnE wrote:
No one cares if you are correct. What are you talking about? Seriously. You don't get anything extra by being "correct." Pascals Wager is completely about being correct and the consequences tha results from it. If it is true that there is no afterlife--then there is no afterlife and your meaning ceases. If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked is right--then you are rewarded. If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked was wrong--then you are punished the same as if you believed there was no afterlife. All choices are statistically wrong. But there's no reward to being correct should you believe in no afterlife.
The reward for being correct in choosing an afterlife is "something" as opposed to nothing. If you're wrong, you'll receive the same punishment as not believing. This is why Pascal suggests it is logical to at least believe in something to better increase you're chances at a substantive reward should you be correct.
Whether you're correct or not has no bearing on what the afterlife is like. Sure, there's no reward to being correct if you believe there's no afterlife. But there are infinitely many rewards to being wrong that there's no afterlife. Like I said, it's totally possible that the afterlife is only granted to those who do not believe. There's an infinite number of afterlives that you can only get by not believing in an afterlife.
Anyone alive lacks the information necessary to decide what belief is most profitable.
|
On April 01 2015 10:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:What did I misread?
On April 01 2015 10:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 10:16 IgnE wrote:
No one cares if you are correct. What are you talking about? Seriously. You don't get anything extra by being "correct." Pascals Wager is completely about being correct and the consequences tha results from it. If it is true that there is no afterlife--then there is no afterlife and your meaning ceases. If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked is right--then you are rewarded. If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked was wrong--then you are punished the same as if you believed there was no afterlife. All choices are statistically wrong. But there's no reward to being correct should you believe in no afterlife.The reward for being correct in choosing an afterlife is "something" as opposed to nothing. If you're wrong, you'll receive the same punishment as not believing. This is why Pascal suggests it is logical to at least believe in something to better increase you're chances at a substantive reward should you be correct.
I bolded it for you to make it easy. That bolded statement is something you have completely made up and is not consistent with the premises as you laid them out. You are incoherent and either trolling or remarkably stupid.
EDIT: Millitron also pointed out the same thing as I was posting this.
|
On April 01 2015 10:54 puerk wrote:we established that around 8 pages earlier already....
Neither you not Milton posted anything 8pages ago.
8 pages ago are people screaming about how Christianity isn't correct and me telling then I wasn't talking about Christianity. 8 pages ago was where both me and Djpaz agreed that Pascals Wager had flaws.
So does that mean you're still in a "prove the zealots wrong" kick?
|
On April 01 2015 10:56 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 09:52 excitedBear wrote:On April 01 2015 09:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
is there any theoretical way to get close to or surpass the speed of light while somehow managing to avoid the problem off time dilation? Yes, you can prove that Einstein's theories are wrong. Good luck with that! another question that's a little similar. any solid theoretical physics attempts at space travel recently? I have a book from 1993 that talks about ramjets, boussard's rocket, arks and the like but was wondering if there's anything more recent
Look up Alcubierre warp drive.
|
On April 01 2015 09:52 excitedBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 09:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
is there any theoretical way to get close to or surpass the speed of light while somehow managing to avoid the problem off time dilation? Yes, you can prove that Einstein's theories are wrong. Good luck with that!
Well, if you want to travel at or near the speed of light (or hang out really near a black hole, or a variety of other really deadly shit you probably can´t do and live to tell about it) then basically, no. However, if all you want to do is get from point A to point B really really really fast, there are quite a few theoretical possibilities. I still like warp drives.
|
On April 01 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 10:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 10:44 IgnE wrote:
Wow. You can't read. What did I misread? Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 10:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 10:16 IgnE wrote:
No one cares if you are correct. What are you talking about? Seriously. You don't get anything extra by being "correct." Pascals Wager is completely about being correct and the consequences tha results from it. If it is true that there is no afterlife--then there is no afterlife and your meaning ceases. If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked is right--then you are rewarded. If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked was wrong--then you are punished the same as if you believed there was no afterlife. All choices are statistically wrong. But there's no reward to being correct should you believe in no afterlife.The reward for being correct in choosing an afterlife is "something" as opposed to nothing. If you're wrong, you'll receive the same punishment as not believing. This is why Pascal suggests it is logical to at least believe in something to better increase you're chances at a substantive reward should you be correct. I bolded it for you to make it easy. That bolded statement is something you have completely made up and is not consistent with the premises as you laid them out. You are incoherent and either trolling or remarkably stupid. EDIT: Millitron also pointed out the same thing as I was posting this.
So tell me IgNe
If you are correct that you get nothing when you die--what do you get when you die?
It's a tautologically correct system. I you believe you get nothing by dying, then being correct give you nothing.
If you are wrong and you actually do get something when you die--then when you die you get something. The only way believing in no afterlife rewards you is if you are wrong. Tautologically speaking. I did not have to make it up--it's the whole point of the phrase "nothing happens after you die"
We can definitely argue over which afterlife requirements are most logical and benefiting to society. For example, if you believe that the only way to "heaven" is by not believing in god then go for it. Whatever floats your boat. The choices about which version of a possible heaven is infinite (as I have said exhaustively).
However, only one of those options doesn't give you anything if you are truly correct about it--which is believing there is no afterlife.
|
On April 01 2015 10:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 10:54 puerk wrote:On April 01 2015 10:44 IgnE wrote:
Wow. You can't read. we established that around 8 pages earlier already.... Neither you not Milton posted anything 8pages ago. 8 pages ago are people screaming about how Christianity isn't correct and me telling then I wasn't talking about Christianity. 8 pages ago was where both me and Djpaz agreed that Pascals Wager had flaws. So does that mean you're still in a "prove the zealots wrong" kick?
No. I think everybody is just tired of trying to plod through 18-paragraph posts that reiterate the same point you made in your previous 18-paragraph post but is still wrong.
What Millitron is trying to point out is that one of the N possibilities might be a rather quirky God, who only lets people into heaven if they DON'T believe in any god.
So no. In this case, the reward for religious people (all brands) is X (or if he is particularly petty, he lets them rot in hell for all eternity) and for atheists it is X + Y.
So in other words, there is no magic chosen one (atheism) out of the infinite possibilities that gets no possible reward at the end of the tunnel. There are simply N possibilities (in fact, it became an argument FOR atheism: atheists (might) get their cake and eat it too). Providing yet another counter-argument to Pascal's wager.
And no, you are not a special little snowflake for having found a flaw in his argument. As this thread has shown, there are numerous counter-arguments, none of which Pascal is alive to argue against, so we win. Can we now please go back to discussing the merits of shoving a girl through a door after you hold it open for her and other stupid questions?
|
On April 01 2015 11:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On April 01 2015 10:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 10:44 IgnE wrote:
Wow. You can't read. What did I misread? On April 01 2015 10:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 10:16 IgnE wrote:
No one cares if you are correct. What are you talking about? Seriously. You don't get anything extra by being "correct." Pascals Wager is completely about being correct and the consequences tha results from it. If it is true that there is no afterlife--then there is no afterlife and your meaning ceases. If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked is right--then you are rewarded. If it's true that of the infinite possible after life's that the one you picked was wrong--then you are punished the same as if you believed there was no afterlife. All choices are statistically wrong. But there's no reward to being correct should you believe in no afterlife.The reward for being correct in choosing an afterlife is "something" as opposed to nothing. If you're wrong, you'll receive the same punishment as not believing. This is why Pascal suggests it is logical to at least believe in something to better increase you're chances at a substantive reward should you be correct. I bolded it for you to make it easy. That bolded statement is something you have completely made up and is not consistent with the premises as you laid them out. You are incoherent and either trolling or remarkably stupid. EDIT: Millitron also pointed out the same thing as I was posting this. So tell me IgNe If you are correct that you get nothing when you die--what do you get when you die? It's a tautologically correct system. I you believe you get nothing by dying, then being correct give you nothing. If you are wrong and you actually do get something when you die--then when you die you get something. The only way believing in no afterlife rewards you is if you are wrong. Tautologically speaking. I did not have to make it up--it's the whole point of the phrase "nothing happens after you die" We can definitely argue over which afterlife requirements are most logical and benefiting to society. For example, if you believe that the only way to "heaven" is by not believing in god then go for it. Whatever floats your boat. The choices about which version of a possible heaven is infinite (as I have said exhaustively). However, only one of those options doesn't give you anything if you are truly correct about it--which is believing there is no afterlife.
You're forgetting that it is equally likely that you only get your great afterlife if you believe there is no afterlife. Being correct in and of itself is no reward. Being right or wrong doesn't matter. The point is which one gets you into heaven. It is equally likely that you will be rewarded for being wrong as it is that you will be rewarded for being right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
