Happiness isn't defined by money (many of the happiest people I've met didn't have a lot) but ignorance does undoubtedly play a role in how we act. Reckless procreation is wrong. — DA671

I wish we had data to work on. Methinks happiness & wealth are strongly correlated which makes the paradox even more baffling. Happy people don't want or want fewer children.

When one tries to do analytic continuation of the Riemann Zeta function where it is not warranted this kind of nonsense results. What makes it useful in physics is beyond me. — jgill

This $(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} = -\frac{1}{12})$"nonsense result" has applications in science, in string theory to be precise. I thought mathematicians like yourself would know. Oh, but I repeat myself. Apologies.

"Feets is good", they say, "but wheels is gooder." :smirk: — 180 Proof

I don't follow. What do you mean?

The world is the totality of facts. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

Facts are truths about the world and abso-f**cking-lutely that's all there is to the world. I don't see anything fancy/weird going on! :chin:

Here's a rather curious paradox.

Educated, well-to-do folks are opting to remain childless or have only small families.

A fortiori the poor should be antinatalists through and through. They are decidely not - the largest families are seen among the economically backward. However, the reason (distributing the suffering) squares with antinatalism (it isn't despite :sad:, it's because of it).

So, "Who" loses if they are not born? Paying attention to "Who", the actual referent? — schopenhauer1

I see now the import of your question, but as I said earlier, the assumption I'm making in my mathematical formulation of the issue is that we exist prior to birth and can decide to either play or not to play (the game of life). In other words there's a person who does lose/win the game depending on the values of the variables involved in the calculations.

In my humble opinion, it's a better way to tackle the subject as nonexistence (pre-birth) is a complex concept and better avoided - more trouble than it's worth.

But, but, but... that number arises from calculating infinite sums, and explicitly not from setting a finite limit. You cannot get to it if you set a finite limit. — unenlightened

Yea! Notice however that the $\infty$ sum has a finite value ($-\frac{1}{12}$). That's the killer move!

No but I’m serious. Look at the question again. Also this utilitarian calculus… “Who” benefits from greater blah blah? — schopenhauer1

If the odds are in favor of a pleasurable existence, the person who decides to play the game of life wins :party: . If the opposite, the player loses :cry: !

We need to know the values of p, h, w% and l% to come to a definitive conclusion monsieur.

Please note, my math's a bit rusty and so cum grano salis please. Sorry if this was a waste of your valuable time. Not intended. Beginner here!

Why did W do it in Iraq?

Hubris. — Olivier5

There's one and only one answer why people do things these days - MONEY!

What’s the price paid for a non actualized happy life? And now the price paid for the other? Who bears the collateral damage? — schopenhauer1

The math assumes it's possible to decide whether to be born as a human on Earth. The catch is the veil of ignorance - you have no control over those factors that make the difference betwixt a happy life and a sad one!

A few salient points need to be clarified: The w% and l% matter and so does +h (the amount of happiness) and -p (the magnitude of suffering).

The value can be greater, though this isn't always going to be the case (just as its complete absence is not an ineluctable truth). May you have a wonderful day! :pray: — DA671

The math speaks for itself! I made a boo-boo but I fixed it (I think). Have a dekko and report any errors to me please. Danke!

All that comes to mind is Russia/Putin isn't a nitwit - war must've been always the last option. Why would you send thousands and thousands of one's soldiers into battle when the consequences, in case of defeat, can be geopolitically catastrophic and I haven't even talked about the possible of anti-war movements that could destabilize the campaign and end it abruptly and shamefully.

In short, Russia is the cornered cat and basic self-perservation drive kicks in and then...all bets are off, oui monsieur?

The low hangin' fruits are godless utilitarianism (hedonic) and also godless Kantian ethics (consistency).

What about the famous Euthyphro's dilemma? Is it good because God commands it or does God command because it's good?

The first horn of the dilemma, if you do give it the stamp of approval, there's no need for consistency (whatever God fancies is :snicker: good, from rape to genocide). Refer to the Old Testament to find out what that entails.

Secondly, the latter option implies simply that God isn't an authority on morality; in other words there's another source for morality which God consults and mulls over perhaps before he gives orders. Can we reason our way to thid source? Is it deducible?

Probabilistic, game-theoreric analysis natalism-antinatalism:

What and how much are the charges for playing the game of life? Say it's -p (entry fee is in pain - how much pain qre you willing to bear?)

What's the probability of winning (happy life, +h)? Say w%

What's the probability of losing (miserable life, -p) ? 1 - w% = l%

The expected value if you play = $w\% \times h + l\% \times -p$ = (say) r [return]

The game of life is worth playing only if r > 0!

From my own bag of simple experiences: A thief was shot twice - once in the chest and once in the butt - by police. He was brought unconscious into the ER and a code red was called. Some senior doctors (veterans) immediately latched onto the chest wound. There were two junior trainee doctors also there. One of 'em located the entry wound in the bottom. He immediately took a scalpel and proceeded to extract the responsible bullet - it was a grazing wound and the bullet was just sitting under the skin about 15 cm from the point of entry. This guy took a forceps and extracted the bullet with great finesse and he proudly announced "here's a bullet!" Nobody took notice as the patient was going into cardiorespiratory arrest! The Elephant Chest wound in the room ER!

Nice work. So when Jesus says things such as - 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do...' is he reasoning with himself? — Tom Storm

Nour Hadidi (Lebanese comedienne) [paraphrasing]: I talk to myself in Arabic so that if people discover me doing that I can always pretend I'm praying!

:snicker:

Nice! I have a rough idea of what you're gettin' at. Your is what I'd call a variable-based theory. It generalizes the intuition/rationale of the multiple hypotheses floatin around such that each one fits with your x-based EnformAction thesis; how snugly is up to how good is your generalization is of course.

Let's test how good your idea is: Try and harmonize the following thesis-antithesis pairs:

1. Theism-Atheism (everyone's favorite don't-get-along-at-all couple).

2. Rationalism-Empiricism (another such pair).

I see. So I'm not exactly wrong in saying some experts object to $\infty$. Do you know any reasons why?

As per some sources, the Greeks kept $\infty$ at arm's length because of paradoxes that it generates (vide Zeno's paradoxes) and other such as x + x = x $\to$ 2x = x $\to$ 2 = 1 (:brow:)

The number that's to be swapped with $\infty$ doesn't have to be "very large" as the video on $-\frac{1}{12}$ I posted demonstrates.

Ok, it's obvious now that antinatalism is false - the reason for this is its scope - it advocates for universal cessation of births which is impossible to justify since some of us, the lucky/smart ones, live reasonably happy lives.

However, intriguingly, this doesn't make natalism automatically true for there are people who're living in the direst of circumstances, such circumstances that to birth children amounts to a torture sentence for 'em, the kids.

Both natalism & antinatalism are wrong for the same reason - concluding a universal (all) from particulars (some).

Disagree with P. However, it can certainly be true in some cases, which is what we need to avoid as much as possible. — DA671

Yeah!

Although such research is questionable, those that study reincarnation stories have not found evidence for karma. Only for reincarnation through alleged memories of previous lives. — TiredThinker

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

The Greek notion of metempsychosis doesn't include karma (moral causation). Everybody reborn is given a fresh start, there being no such thing as a karmic debt that carries over from the past life.

I'll need time to process that! Good day & gracias.

:ok:

I'm in your debt monsieur! Danke!

Sancta trinitas unus deus.

Hallelujah!

(The Father)$\frac{1}{2} \equiv$ (The Son) $\frac{4}{8} \equiv$ (The Holy Spirit) $\frac{6}{12}$ [Equivalence]

(The Father) $\frac{1}{2} \neq$ (The Son) $\frac{4}{8} \neq$ (The Holy Spirit) $\frac{6}{12}$ [Equality]

The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are indiscernible (to us); hence all 3 are the same (for us). However, they're distinct entities; hence the 3 are not the same.

They're like identical triplets you see. Bring them one by one in front of you and you wouldn't be able to tell one apart from the other. Nevertheless, each is a unique, different person.

:smile:

Isn't what I said implied by finitism?

Gracias for answering my question. Most of your reply went over my head; nevertheless, I sense an agreement on your part that other branches of math, not just calculus, may lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of the big bang and other phenomena like black holes, etc., stuff we're reportedly unable to parse as of the moment.

The temperature data fits the climate change hypothesis alright, but what/where are the other hypotheses? There should be at least one other which then gets ruled out (falsified) by making an incorrect prediction. This - formulating more than 1 hypothesis - is routine in science I was told.

Anyway, muchas gracias for such an informative reply.

Where's the combat mission? — Tate

Where?, indeed!

The choice isn't good or bad, it's bad or worse! Choose the lesser of two evils (betwixt Scylla & Charybdis we will forever remain until...<inconceivable>)!

A snippet of dialog (Guardians of the galaxy)

Gamora: This is the one? Seriously? (looking at Quill)

Nebula: The choices were him or a tree.

:snicker:

Humans can be roughly divided into 3 groups:

1. Thinkers (IQ)
2. Feelers (EQ)
3. Workers (PQ)

Group 3 is most susceptible to being replaced/augmented by machines.

Work on how to automate group 1 abilities was begun in the 1950s, but apart from Deep Blue which defeated world champion Kasparov in chess and AlphaGo which beat, another world champion, Lee Sedol, there's not much to brag about in the AI field; group 1 is safe (for now).

Group 2 seems to be the last entry in our wish list; these guys and gals are probably gonna be the ones AI want as symbionts!

There are some beliefs that people won't act on or if they do their actions are not proportionate to their beliefs. Some believe in ghosts/poltergeists/witches/demons/and so on, but all they do is just yak about 'em. Tell these very same people that you saw someone wearing a hoodie and armed and they'll run for their lives!

The other question, to wit why is there nothing rather than something? is ~◇ to ask! To ask the question a conscious being, not just something, hasta exist but the question asserts that nothing exists! It would be what one person in another forum wished to discuss, a stupid question. Nevertheless, as per some brilliant folks, there's no such thing as a stupid question.

pregeometric — apokrisis

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

Which branch of math do you suppose is most apt for decoding the Big Bang (13.8 × 10⁹ suns ago)? We already tried calculus, arithmetic part & parcel of that, and as per reliable sources we're kinda stuck or have hit a wall. Should we turn to geometry/topology/knot theory/etc.? :grin: These are the only other subfields of math I've heard of.

A = Antinatalism

S = Life is suffering

P = Life is predominantly suffering.

The Argument from Suffering for Antinatalism

1. (S $\lor$ P) $\to$ A

2. S $\lor$ P

Ergo,

3. A [1, 2 MP]

The butler was visiting a friend.

The maid was with the wife.

Ergo,

The murder was committed by someone else, a third person was in the house!

Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate (Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity). — Novacula Occami

When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra. — Dr. Theodore Woodward

:snicker:

The Struggle for Existence (not my words, trust me). Life is a struggle. A long queue outside the door with a sign that reads LIFE!

:snicker:

Just found relativist's post interesting! It clears up my misconception.

I made a bad typo. I just now corrected it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No problemo, you corrected it before anyone saw it! :smile:

Did you read this? I'm sure you're in the know about what relativist is talking about.

:ok: