Argument against antinatalism

1. Suffering = Dying [premise]

2. If you mind suffering, you mind dying [from 1]

3. If you mind dying, you mind death [premise]

4. If you mind suffering, you mind death [2, 3 HS]

5. Death = Nonexistence [premise]

6. If you mind suffering, you mind nonexistence [from 4, 5]

7. If you mind nonexistence, antinatalism is false [premise]

8. If you mind suffering, antinatalism is false [6, 7 HS]

9. You mind suffering [premise]

10. Antinatalism is false [8, 9 MP]

QED

Hate, emotions generally, is/are so weird, both to feel and express. Sometimes, I conjecture, two incompatible feelings e.g. love-hate become so intense that the mind splits into an appropriate number of pieces, each compartmentalized and separated from the other, as a defensive mechanism, to prevent a mind crash (re Dissociative Identity Disorder). The compartmentalization may not be fail-safe, remember the Titanic!

A. One's comments
1. Good (reasonable/knowledegable/insightful) (G)
2. Bad (unreasonable/ignorant/irrelevant) (B)

B. Being mentioned
3. Approving good comments (A)
4. Disapproving bad comments (D)

$\frac{Mentions}{Comments} = \frac{G + B}{A + D}$

The ratio doesn't reflect how valuable a member is to the forum (small G, large B & small A, D $\leq$ G, as when you're ignored, would mean a ratio $\geq$ 1).

Murder tortures the survivors — 180 Proof

Doesn't that make torture worse? Torture tortures the survivors more than "Murder tortures the survivors"?

Ok!

This $\uparrow$ isn't an anomaly then - the less one knows the wiser one is! Squares with ignorance is bliss, hedonically that is.

Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. — Mahatma Gandhi

Gandhi was loco!

(1) No comment! Assume true
(2) Ok

Ergo, analogously and contrary to skepticism, some propositions need no proof (acausal) and the infinite regress argument is flawed in the same way!

The causal arm of the PSR (everything requires a cause) mirrors its logical arm (every claim requires proof). If one is false, the other could be as well, oui?

I suppose my question boils down to: is infinity necessary? We really don't use 3.14159... (the real value of $\pi$). Put yourself in an engineer's shoes and answer that question? In other words, at least in the case of $\pi$, an approximation (finite) will do just fine.

Is $\infty$ like God as Cantor believed? Lt. Worf said of Klingon gods, "We killed them. They were more trouble than they were worth."

I'm no mathematician but I believe it's a simple rule of thumb that if a mathematician wants to propose a new idea, s/he'll use $\infty$ only if absolutely necessary and that too with much reservation.

I did? I'm old. Maybe I was closing up shop for the night. :chin: — jgill

:lol: :up:

I don't find that baffling. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

His position is vague. But one can develop it in a fruitful direction - like ultrafinitism. — apokrisis

Muchas gracias for understanding.

I recall @andrewk (hope s/he's well) said something to the effect that we could be like the finite calculator I hypothesized in my post to @jgill [a calculator that can't calculate beyond 5 would display 5 (the arbitrarily large number) for both the queries 2 + 3 = ? and 3 + 29 = ?]; he asked, paraphrasing, how can a finite brain grasp infinity? What follows is there hasta be a finite number to think of which would require every single neuron in the brain to be activated, let's call it N_max. Any number larger would be, in a way, truncated to N_max whatever that is (a cognitive numerical ceiling).

$\infty$ = ERROR!

All this hullabaloo about an error message!

I find it quite reassuring that a) torture isn't mentioned in the code of Hammurabi, neither as an offense and nor as a punishment ( :chin: ) and b) current legal systems considers torture in any way, shape or form barabaric and unacceptable except there seems to be some loopholes that can be exploited (Guantanamo bay).

I sense a disturbance in the Force.

You think Agent Smith is pretending to be a finitist when he is really an ultrafinitist at heart? — apokrisis

:snicker:

I find that really amusing! I'm afraid my acting skills aren't up to the mark, I wouldn't be able to pull off such a stunt.

:rofl:

I respect your judgment although I really haven't the foggiest how to troll.

The Torture Paradox

Extreme pain (Torture) is worse than Death (Murder)!

However, the penalty for torture is less severe than the penalty for murder.

WTF? — Agent Smith

Financially speaking, I don't need to deal with amounts greater than $1,000,000! :snicker:

:smile:

:ok:

Emoticons are as eloquent as you ever get. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm emotional.

ultrafinitist — TonesInDeepFreeze

What's that?

Too simplistic, an oversimplification, eh? I wonder what the punishment for torture was in antiquity, torture? Looks like it wasn't really a criminal offense, being a mode of punishment rather (crucifixion), usually reserved for the baddest of the bad (traitors/heretics/witches).

cite something — Nils Loc

I've never heard of anyone being given the death penalty for torture. Have you?

:smile:

A thousand apologies. — Ranjeet

Over many months (a year or even more?) I have offered the poster the copious explanations — TonesInDeepFreeze

:lol: I can vouch for that!

formal/technical [errors] — Kuro

Formalization, it's a big deal! TonesInDeepFreeze seems well-versed in that department. Hence, I suppose, his annoyance at my rather informal approach to math.

Norman J Wildberger — apokrisis

I know of him. Watched his History of Mathematics on youtube. If memory serves, he's a finitist. His reason, again if memory serves, was that the close bracket "}" doesn't square with the ellipsis " ... " preceding it in {1, 2, 3, ... }. I feel him in a way, but that's about it!

he had to kill his friend — 0 thru 9

C'est la vie mon ami, c'est la vie! :groan:

:up:

The only book I read that discusses the fine-tuning argument is Martin Rees' Just Six Numbers - the gist of the book is that 6 physical constants have values that make life possible with very little margin for error. Even the smallest deviation from measured values would mean a lifeless, barren universe.

I can imagine a creator (programmer) adjusting the dials of, i.e. feeding in information into, a hypercomputer and hitting the right notes so to speak to generate a simulation (the cosmos, our cosmos).

As for the limits of reductionism, I'd say reductionism has a good track record e.g. protein function is well-explained by its secondary/tertiary structure which in turn is fully explicated by its primary structure and that by the properties of constituent molecules & atoms.

However, life feels more than just a complex chemical reaction. I subscribe to some form of emergentism which to my reckoning is the position that an additional ontological level arises from but is more than the level below it, complete with its own set of laws. What I mean is true, there's brain (bio)chemistry that follow all the laws of chemical reaction, but thinking & thoughts are a world in itself, distinct from their chemical basis, and the laws of thought are unique to that level, the level of consciousness (mind). To illustrate, a triangle is reducible to three 1D sides, but a triangle is a 2D object and as a triangle follows different rules [it can, for example, generate a rainbow (prism, Newton)] than a line.

I am confused by the question mark. Are you asking me if they can't be compared in a meaningful way? — Christopher

Well yeah!

In that specific context, yes. — Christopher

Please explain.

Yep, you got it! In the current game universe (shooting/war games being the most popular) there's only one way we can get an idea of what a person is like and that applies to him/herself (temet nosce) which is how s/he kills. It's quite fascinating if you ask me - imagine being put in charge of a gang of murderers, thieves, and rapists and then ordered to go out into the world and do good (re suicide squad)! A challenge worthy of only champions!

Forrester's paradox.

Murder ... gently!

It's alright. My brain can't grok the point of ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet.

Not sure what "logically dependent" is doing here. — Banno

Does the truth/falsity of "Socrates was bald" depend on the truth/falsity of "Some swans are not white"?,

As we all know, the logical disjunction (OR/$\lor$) is inclusive; we can't really rule out the possibility that Jesus was all three - a lying, lunatic Lord!

:snicker:

To kill one is to save all — Nils Loc

because

To kill one is to kill all — Nils Loc

I believe that's the rationale.

Sacrifice Paradox: Jesus is dead (physically), but then, in a sense, he's still alive (in our memories). Cheating death by dying. :chin:

:smile: I'm trying mon ami, to learn. Not exactly in the best of circumstances to do that. Cut me some slack, will ya? Danke.

BIG NUMBER THEORY! Yeah that sounds about right - if there's a finite number that exceeds a supercomputer's ability to grok it (returns an error), then a fortiori humans can't handle it. We could of course always program a computer to display an arbitrarily large number instead. Imagine a calculator that can't deal with numbers larger than 5. If I ask it to do 2 + 3, it does so and gives the result 5, but if I ask it to calculate 3 + 9, it should still give 5 as the sum (it doesn't "understand" 12, a number > 5).

Another analogy that I find relatable is, despite the rather flippant and yet grave, approach, the so-called gameplay walkthrough of which you'll find many on youtube - basically offering hints & tips on how to play (the game of life) and win summa cum laude in a manner of speaking.

Some games I hear tend to be open-ended (I hope I got that word right) - there are decision nodes in them and depending on the choices you make, the game ends in one of many different ways. I consider such games to be opportunities as they are 1)a journey of self-discovery [tells you what kinda person you are] and 2) a benign, bloodless, way of assessing one's impact on the world at large [virtual murder/philanthropy/betrayal/empathy or lack thereof, you get the idea].

I'm sorry my memory fails me (gettin' senile, hope it ain't Alzheimers) but I recall reading an account of this guy, a philosopher perhaps, who when angry with his dog for bad behavior used to call it "MAN!", the most insulting word he could think of. Look up misanthropy (re Heraclitus).

On the flip side, Buddhists are of the view that a human life is a once-in-a-blue-moon opportunity to gain merit (good karma) and/or attain nirvana.

Weiji/crisis [danger AND opportunity].

I haven't done much traveling but I know of tourist guides - their prime directive, show people around a city, take them to culturally, historically, religiously, etc. significant spots/sights; it all boils down to giving visitors/tourists a good impression of the city by providing a representative sample of the best a city has to offer locals and visitors. Note, the dark underbelly is almost always not included in the tour; you could however ask, politely ( :wink: ), and maybe, just maybe, the guide could show you what the mayor doesn't want you to see, at your own risk mind you.

Mutatis mutandis, the above applies to all guides! Am I right? I do hope I am.

As you can see, I'm, in a sense, looking for a person who would be willing, no, more than happy, to die for nothing, essentially violating the PSR. To die for something, boring! To die for nothing, now that's what sets a person apart from the rest!

Aramis: The King has ordered me to seek out the secret general of the Jesuits and to kill him.
Porthos: You should let the secret general worry about that.
Aramis: Problem is that, ah... I am he.

:snicker:

There is nothing better than settling philosophical arguments by the fireside, with Cuban cigars and a fine Port, agreeing to disagree, or to lull oneself into a state of pleasantness in which agreement is more important than triumphing by using nothing but the tools and daresay weapons of logic alone. — god must be atheist

Well, I'm not alone in being partial to mutual agreement. We all want to get along with each other - in fact it seems to be #1 on our wish list - and one condition for that is purportedly agreement on pragmata. However, some have gone a step further and are perfectly fine with what is expressed in the phrase "agree to disagree". In my estimation there's more to beliefs than justification alone - there are, for instance, psychological "reasons" that decide what we consider worthy/unworthy of belief. Euthyphro's dilemma manages to address both aspects of belief adoption - on the one hand we have justified belief (God isn't logically necessary for ethics) and other hand we have a psychological impetus (God isn't desirable).