A hypothetical for you

Verbatim · October 27, 2021, 08:23:45 PM

Quote from: dahuterschuter on October 27, 2021, 05:26:28 PM

Second, Verb, you seem to be not understanding that the entire point is that the possibility of one of the 100 condemning you is what constitutes the game theory outcome of it being necessary for you to be that one.

i understand it just fine—everything you're saying is logically sound

i literally just don't like that you used the word "guarantee," because it's simply inaccurate

let's change the scenario so that all 100 people make their choice simultaneously, and that you're part of the group—you, with your supreme knowledge of game theory, mark down the first option as your choice, and against all odds, it's revealed to you that everyone else voted for the second option

what would your reaction be? the way i see it, it's a good thing the option to relinquish your immortality was baked into the hypothetical, otherwise you'd have the biggest fucking egg on your face

Quote

You're for some reason stuck way back at unlikely and impossible

i don't see it as "way back"—i see this question as further along the conversation than what you're pondering, because the root of it is more concerned with the ethics of the situation, which is a fundamentally deeper question than "what's the best strategy to 'win' at this game"

you're trying to play the game to "win" it, because you think reducing your choice down to what produces the "highest self-benefit" is how you "win" a game like this

you're the kind of guy who watches a show like Squid Game for the games and not the message

a more high-minded person could argue that the "best" option would be to put your own personal comfort at stake and be willing to have yourself tortured for all eternity for the sake of keeping your principles, your innocence, or even just maintaining a clean conscience

the way you look at the "game" only applies if you equate making it out alive and unharmed as "winning," which is understandable if incredibly basic and middlebrow

maverick · October 28, 2021, 02:51:04 PM

Either be trapped on an island for 1 trillion years, or be responsible for the torment of 99 people.

I’d probably just kill myself tbh.

MarKhan · October 28, 2021, 05:58:59 PM

Nihil

DAS B00T x2 · October 28, 2021, 08:32:15 PM

Alright so
Say I'm a solipsist.
Convince me that it's wrong to not fuck off from the island for a billion trillion years till the expansion of the sun makes the earth a living hellworld at the expense of the those imaginary people on the island.

dahuterschuter · October 29, 2021, 10:24:09 AM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on October 28, 2021, 08:32:15 PM

Alright so
Say I'm a solipsist.
Convince me that it's wrong to not fuck off from the island for a billion trillion years till the expansion of the sun makes the earth a living hellworld at the expense of the those imaginary people on the island.

It's possible that Hell could exist and you might go to it for doing something bad.

Verbatim · October 29, 2021, 12:46:34 PM

"going to hell just means i get to hang out with [celebrity/musician/historical figure that i admire], which sounds like a pretty good time"
"getting fucked by demons sounds pretty hot anyway"
"something something masochism lol"

don't do it das

DAS B00T x2 · October 29, 2021, 05:00:12 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 29, 2021, 12:46:34 PM

"going to hell just means i get to hang out with [celebrity/musician/historical figure that i admire], which sounds like a pretty good time"
"getting fucked by demons sounds pretty hot anyway"
"something something masochism lol"

don't do it das

but verb
don't you wanna just take a ride on baphomet's giant goat cock

October 29, 2021, 11:17:06 PM

Well, here's my thoughts.

Take a business like a grocery store for instance. Add unlimited time to its existence but the owners change because retirement. What is the probability that as time goes on, a corrupt or incopotant owner will eventually take the wheel and drive the business into the ground? The greater the length time, the higher the probability, until it hits one hundred percent.

So this law applies to our hypothetical island. As time goes on, what's the probability that somebody would pick permanent existence at the cost of misery for the others on the island? Same answer as the first. It rises.

However, I have another thought. What's the probability that an individual would pick permanent existence, and go out into the world and do nothing with their infinite time? The probability is high.

Knowing all this, I'd be the first person to pick permanent existence, for several reasons even though hypothetically I'd recoil at the idea of knowing that I condemned 90 or so people to a time of pain until I was ready to hit the off switch.

I could do a lot with infinite time. And I'd do my damndest to put that time to use because other people are paying for it. I'd work my way into all the shitty ass systems we've built as human beings and correct them. Change everything about our systems slowly for the sake of more or less making a better future for human beings outside the island.

When I was sure that I'd done everything I could to progress our world to something better, I'd choose to hit the off switch, having done my work, or find some way to help those back on the island, either by making them die with me or simply freeing them from the torment situation.

The way I see it, even if it's morally rephensible, it isn't about morals, it's a question of raw math. One way or another there will be somebody(more than one) willing to condemn those on the island to suffering. Those people's fates are set in stone then. They will never not avoid the torture option. So the real question is, would I let one of those reprehensible people make the choice and not use their time wisely? Or would I cut them off before they could ever make it, because I at least know I'd devote my existence to something helpful beyond the island?