Talk:2947: Pascal's Wager Triangle - Revision history

GreatWyrmGold at 04:16, 25 June 2024

2024-06-25T04:16:19Z

172.70.86.9 at 19:25, 23 June 2024

2024-06-23T19:25:40Z

NiceGuy1 at 04:07, 23 June 2024

2024-06-23T04:07:15Z

WingedCat at 00:20, 22 June 2024

2024-06-22T00:20:26Z

172.69.195.56 at 16:37, 21 June 2024

2024-06-21T16:37:00Z

Psychoticpotato at 13:19, 20 June 2024

2024-06-20T13:19:10Z

Mouse: Add a comment

2024-06-20T07:25:46Z

Add a comment

141.101.69.118: Added a comment on the two gods not being recognised as the same.

2024-06-19T19:03:00Z

Added a comment on the two gods not being recognised as the same.

198.41.242.174: Gnosticism to the rescue

2024-06-19T08:05:15Z

Gnosticism to the rescue

108.162.221.61 at 05:34, 19 June 2024

2024-06-19T05:34:16Z

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 : This reminds me of a novel (I think it was Arthur C. Clarke's ''3001: The Final Odyssey'') where in the distant future, all religions ended up merging into two - one where there is ''at most'' one god and one where there is ''at least'' one god.  [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 14:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 : A surprisingly large number of religions actually don't care if you additionally are a member of another religion. Happens all the time in eastern Asia.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.173|162.158.212.173]] 21:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 What if there is a God, but they don't want you to believe in them?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.35|172.70.86.35]] 11:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 23 June 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:

	'''''PROBLEM''''': Currently, the transcript includes a recreation of the triangle, nicknaming the Cueballs C1 through 15, laid out in a triangle. This seems too visual for the transcript. The thing is, it seems like a major goal of the transcript is for blind people, who have a reader program read them the transcript, and they follow XKCD solely in this way. Wouldn't a reader program render this as "C1 C2 C3..." etc? Giving no indication as to the layout? As the fix feels rather clunky and I'm not 100% sure this is an issue, I felt I should mention it first before enacting change. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 04:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)		'''''PROBLEM''''': Currently, the transcript includes a recreation of the triangle, nicknaming the Cueballs C1 through 15, laid out in a triangle. This seems too visual for the transcript. The thing is, it seems like a major goal of the transcript is for blind people, who have a reader program read them the transcript, and they follow XKCD solely in this way. Wouldn't a reader program render this as "C1 C2 C3..." etc? Giving no indication as to the layout? As the fix feels rather clunky and I'm not 100% sure this is an issue, I felt I should mention it first before enacting change. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 04:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
		+	:Extended the Transcript to perhaps help cater for this issue. Maybe too wordy. Maybe a mistake to mention what ''isn't'' there (except in explaining the full spirit of the diagram). But hopefully more mentally re-constructable by anyone with a visual imagination. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.9\|172.70.86.9]] 19:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:07, 23 June 2024
Line 29:		Line 29:

	Doesn't the exact wording of the alt text not technically call for a classic Pascal's Wager, but rather an inverted triangle where there is only one number at the bottom, two in the row above the bottom, et cetera? (Since there have to be two numbers above every number: the traditional exception for the top row and the numbers at the sides isn't present.) Given such a triangle, wouldn't the only possible solutions be all-0, all-positive-infinity, or all-negative-infinity, which certain readings of "number" might restrict to the all-0 solution? [[User:WingedCat\|WingedCat]] ([[User talk:WingedCat\|talk]]) 00:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)		Doesn't the exact wording of the alt text not technically call for a classic Pascal's Wager, but rather an inverted triangle where there is only one number at the bottom, two in the row above the bottom, et cetera? (Since there have to be two numbers above every number: the traditional exception for the top row and the numbers at the sides isn't present.) Given such a triangle, wouldn't the only possible solutions be all-0, all-positive-infinity, or all-negative-infinity, which certain readings of "number" might restrict to the all-0 solution? [[User:WingedCat\|WingedCat]] ([[User talk:WingedCat\|talk]]) 00:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	'''''PROBLEM''''': Currently, the transcript includes a recreation of the triangle, nicknaming the Cueballs C1 through 15, laid out in a triangle. This seems too visual for the transcript. The thing is, it seems like a major goal of the transcript is for blind people, who have a reader program read them the transcript, and they follow XKCD solely in this way. Wouldn't a reader program render this as "C1 C2 C3..." etc? Giving no indication as to the layout? As the fix feels rather clunky and I'm not 100% sure this is an issue, I felt I should mention it first before enacting change. [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 04:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:20, 22 June 2024
Line 27:		Line 27:
	(A more realistic approach could be to just outwardly conform to the social expectations of the society to which you belong. With or without any actual core belief, which cannot be tested in any realistic manner during your lifetime, maintaining a performative cohesion with your neighbours and acquaintences would still benefit you in avoiding standing out from the commonly accepted ideology. This may still count as a 'belief' (desirable or undesirable) should this stance ever come to be judged by any deity, with your ultimate fate probably being mirrored by others that you know who are in your exact same ideological position and merely outwardly perpetuting the 'accepted' demonstrations of faith. Assuming that the society's religion is not a self-destructive one, you would have as good a lifetime as circumstances would generally allow, with the ''possibility'' of an afterlife that is at least not uniquely bad for you; unlike the smart-arse who presumes to know what the single best theological stance is and then has to rationalise their attempt to cynically play the odds upon Judgement Day, against a deity who fully understands their base motivations and may even take far less kindly towards a Wagerer than with someone who never ever tried to 'believe' but at least was generally and secularly philanthropic in a way that the deity might be pleased by.)		(A more realistic approach could be to just outwardly conform to the social expectations of the society to which you belong. With or without any actual core belief, which cannot be tested in any realistic manner during your lifetime, maintaining a performative cohesion with your neighbours and acquaintences would still benefit you in avoiding standing out from the commonly accepted ideology. This may still count as a 'belief' (desirable or undesirable) should this stance ever come to be judged by any deity, with your ultimate fate probably being mirrored by others that you know who are in your exact same ideological position and merely outwardly perpetuting the 'accepted' demonstrations of faith. Assuming that the society's religion is not a self-destructive one, you would have as good a lifetime as circumstances would generally allow, with the ''possibility'' of an afterlife that is at least not uniquely bad for you; unlike the smart-arse who presumes to know what the single best theological stance is and then has to rationalise their attempt to cynically play the odds upon Judgement Day, against a deity who fully understands their base motivations and may even take far less kindly towards a Wagerer than with someone who never ever tried to 'believe' but at least was generally and secularly philanthropic in a way that the deity might be pleased by.)
	I stand by the logic, as far as it can ever be taken (without knowing anything useful about the actual mind of God/gods it has to be tested against) but it got a bit long as a 'minor philosophical interlude'. And if the Ultimate Arbiter does ''not'' like Bill-And-Ted-ism (i.e. "be excellent to each other") and getting along with your community, instead prefers more outstandingly misanthropic worldly behaviours (because the only 'heavenly' afterlife is more Valhalla than Asphodel Meadows; anyone who even mildly disappoints goes to the Hades/Tartarus equivalent) without actually clueing us in on this particular Ineffable Plan, then the fate of many (who ''don't'' make earthly lives more miserable for the rest of us) is pretty much doomed from the start and even the most perfect Pascalian Wagerer probably never managed to stand on the right side of the philosophical barrier either. This whole argument is not even a novel philosophy, of course, but it's mine. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.56\|172.69.195.56]] 16:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)		I stand by the logic, as far as it can ever be taken (without knowing anything useful about the actual mind of God/gods it has to be tested against) but it got a bit long as a 'minor philosophical interlude'. And if the Ultimate Arbiter does ''not'' like Bill-And-Ted-ism (i.e. "be excellent to each other") and getting along with your community, instead prefers more outstandingly misanthropic worldly behaviours (because the only 'heavenly' afterlife is more Valhalla than Asphodel Meadows; anyone who even mildly disappoints goes to the Hades/Tartarus equivalent) without actually clueing us in on this particular Ineffable Plan, then the fate of many (who ''don't'' make earthly lives more miserable for the rest of us) is pretty much doomed from the start and even the most perfect Pascalian Wagerer probably never managed to stand on the right side of the philosophical barrier either. This whole argument is not even a novel philosophy, of course, but it's mine. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.56\|172.69.195.56]] 16:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	Doesn't the exact wording of the alt text not technically call for a classic Pascal's Wager, but rather an inverted triangle where there is only one number at the bottom, two in the row above the bottom, et cetera? (Since there have to be two numbers above every number: the traditional exception for the top row and the numbers at the sides isn't present.) Given such a triangle, wouldn't the only possible solutions be all-0, all-positive-infinity, or all-negative-infinity, which certain readings of "number" might restrict to the all-0 solution? [[User:WingedCat\|WingedCat]] ([[User talk:WingedCat\|talk]]) 00:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 21 June 2024
Line 23:		Line 23:
	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61\|108.162.221.61]] 05:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61\|108.162.221.61]] 05:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
	:The use of the words "complete" and "infinite" while referring to the same thing is funny to me. I don't know why, though. [[User:Psychoticpotato\|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato\|talk]]) 13:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)		:The use of the words "complete" and "infinite" while referring to the same thing is funny to me. I don't know why, though. [[User:Psychoticpotato\|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato\|talk]]) 13:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	I very nearly inserted the following 'argument' paragraph in the Explanation, but decided that it perhaps was a bit of a 'belief' of my own.
		+	(A more realistic approach could be to just outwardly conform to the social expectations of the society to which you belong. With or without any actual core belief, which cannot be tested in any realistic manner during your lifetime, maintaining a performative cohesion with your neighbours and acquaintences would still benefit you in avoiding standing out from the commonly accepted ideology. This may still count as a 'belief' (desirable or undesirable) should this stance ever come to be judged by any deity, with your ultimate fate probably being mirrored by others that you know who are in your exact same ideological position and merely outwardly perpetuting the 'accepted' demonstrations of faith. Assuming that the society's religion is not a self-destructive one, you would have as good a lifetime as circumstances would generally allow, with the ''possibility'' of an afterlife that is at least not uniquely bad for you; unlike the smart-arse who presumes to know what the single best theological stance is and then has to rationalise their attempt to cynically play the odds upon Judgement Day, against a deity who fully understands their base motivations and may even take far less kindly towards a Wagerer than with someone who never ever tried to 'believe' but at least was generally and secularly philanthropic in a way that the deity might be pleased by.)
		+	I stand by the logic, as far as it can ever be taken (without knowing anything useful about the actual mind of God/gods it has to be tested against) but it got a bit long as a 'minor philosophical interlude'. And if the Ultimate Arbiter does ''not'' like Bill-And-Ted-ism (i.e. "be excellent to each other") and getting along with your community, instead prefers more outstandingly misanthropic worldly behaviours (because the only 'heavenly' afterlife is more Valhalla than Asphodel Meadows; anyone who even mildly disappoints goes to the Hades/Tartarus equivalent) without actually clueing us in on this particular Ineffable Plan, then the fate of many (who ''don't'' make earthly lives more miserable for the rest of us) is pretty much doomed from the start and even the most perfect Pascalian Wagerer probably never managed to stand on the right side of the philosophical barrier either. This whole argument is not even a novel philosophy, of course, but it's mine. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.56\|172.69.195.56]] 16:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 20 June 2024
Line 22:		Line 22:
	>>then there is minimal cost to drawing one anyway<< I argue that drawing a complete pascal's triangle will take infinite time and infinite resources. Which is slightly above "minimal cost"		>>then there is minimal cost to drawing one anyway<< I argue that drawing a complete pascal's triangle will take infinite time and infinite resources. Which is slightly above "minimal cost"
	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61\|108.162.221.61]] 05:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61\|108.162.221.61]] 05:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
		+	:The use of the words "complete" and "infinite" while referring to the same thing is funny to me. I don't know why, though. [[User:Psychoticpotato\|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato\|talk]]) 13:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :Tbf there's no clarification by the Line 2 guys that they're talking about the same God. It makes sense that he'd assume they're different. If two different religious people told you at the same time "My God is real" and you'd never really been exposed to religion or atheism, you would assume they were talking about two. Forgive me if I made any unfair assumptions here. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 :Look at the schism in Islam and the huge number of divisions in Christianity. That it may be the same god and same basic religion doesn't mean that it isn't presented entirely differently. For example (what I'm familiar with), Roman Catholic versus Church of England. Similar, but also completely different. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.118|141.101.69.118]] 19:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 >>then there is minimal cost to drawing one anyway<< I argue that drawing a complete pascal's triangle will take infinite time and infinite resources. Which is slightly above "minimal cost"
 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61|108.162.221.61]] 05:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 What if there is a God, but they don't want you to believe in them?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.35|172.70.86.35]] 11:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 :Or a God, but they have impostor syndrome? [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 How did the middle Cueball on line 3 not realize that both Gods he was being asked to believe in are the same God (since the ones on line 2 both got it from the same Cueball on line 1)? Is there also a game of Telephone going on? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:34, 19 June 2024
Line 16:		Line 16:
	How did the middle Cueball on line 3 not realize that both Gods he was being asked to believe in are the same God (since the ones on line 2 both got it from the same Cueball on line 1)? Is there also a game of Telephone going on? [[User:Barmar\|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar\|talk]]) 14:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)		How did the middle Cueball on line 3 not realize that both Gods he was being asked to believe in are the same God (since the ones on line 2 both got it from the same Cueball on line 1)? Is there also a game of Telephone going on? [[User:Barmar\|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar\|talk]]) 14:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Tbf there's no clarification by the Line 2 guys that they're talking about the same God. It makes sense that he'd assume they're different. If two different religious people told you at the same time "My God is real" and you'd never really been exposed to religion or atheism, you would assume they were talking about two. Forgive me if I made any unfair assumptions here. [[User:Psychoticpotato\|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato\|talk]]) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)		:Tbf there's no clarification by the Line 2 guys that they're talking about the same God. It makes sense that he'd assume they're different. If two different religious people told you at the same time "My God is real" and you'd never really been exposed to religion or atheism, you would assume they were talking about two. Forgive me if I made any unfair assumptions here. [[User:Psychoticpotato\|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato\|talk]]) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	>>then there is minimal cost to drawing one anyway<< I argue that drawing a complete pascal's triangle will take infinite time and infinite resources. Which is slightly above "minimal cost"
		+	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.61\|108.162.221.61]] 05:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)