Pascal's wager is bullshit

[Koumei]

Welp, PR has managed to convince me of one thing, shockingly enough... that he has nothing to say worth reading.

It took you this long?

voidy enough void

Even though I had to read that a few times to understand what you meant, that might be the best arrangement of three words ever seen.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You know, even if Pascal's Wager wasn't so full of crap in of itself, it makes me wonder why it's an argument for Christianity.

Christianity starts out by giving every other deity and religion the finger. I mean if you talk to most Christians they'll flat-out deny that any other deity exists. For fuck's sake, ignoring all other deities is the very first commandment. Isn't that, like, what Pascal's Wager is specifically telling you what NOT to do? I mean, I really can't see Thor getting that super-pissed if you worship Quetzalcoatl instead of him, but you'd figure that if you went with YHWH he'd (and Ganesh and Lovitar and Cthulhu) would be angry from first principles by the disrespect inherent in 'thou shalt have no other gods before me'.

It seems to me that even if the argumentative structure for Pascal's Wager was valid, it'd be the biggest argument against Christianity ever. You'd be much better off with Paganism or Hinduism or even Judaism.

[Username17]

Energy comes in all kinds of forms, of which only some are obvious things like matter, light, and heat. Energy is also required to hold thing in unstable positions or have order at all. It is in fact these latter kinds of energy that allow you to get energy out of burning wood. The number of carbons, hydrogens, and oxygens do not change, but in converting cellulose and oxygen gas (an ordered state) to carbon dioxide and water (an entropic state), the amount of order in the system is reduced and the leftover energy is converted into fire.

Now what exactly constitutes an ordered state versus an entropic state can at times be hard to determine. But since everyone here is a gamer, I think the dice analogy is best. Imagine that you have a couple of dice and you intend to roll them until you get a specific number. If your target is seven, you will on average roll 6 times before you get to the target and there are six different die combinations you could stop on. If your target is eleven, you will roll an average of 18 times before stopping and only 2 possible results can stand at the end. In this metaphor, total die rolls constitute the amount of energy in the system required to maintain the level of order and the number of possible end states of the dice represent the equivalent states of the particles in the system. This metaphor is actually my favorite entropy metaphor, because I personally roll a lot of dice and also because the fact that a specific single trial could easily result in dice coming up 11 on the first throw or going thirty tosses without hitting lucky 7 is a good metaphor for how counter-entropic events happen on the quantum level all the time and only sum to predictable energy totals on the macroscopic scale.

But let's get back to an empty universe. In our die rolling metaphor, the empty universe is like the snake eyes. There is only one possible equivalent state for the arrangement of no matter. And that means that you'd expect to have to roll dice 36 times to get that result. Except: imagine that instead of just rolling two dice until they came up ones, you were rolling all the dice in the universe until they all came up ones. That's a lot of order, and that means it's a lot of energy. In fact, it's all the order that it is possible for there to exist, which happens to equal all the energy in the universe.

Something is literally a lower energy state than nothing. And to this day, if you empty out a little area of the universe (a task which conspicuously takes energy to achieve), little particles form inside. If you make a bigger emptiness, more particles form. And so on.

Various religions have posited that the universe had a beginning or was eternal, and they are both wrong. The universe is currently still beginning. All the time. And it will keep on doing that forever.

-Username17

[Shatner]

Nice post but I'm having a little difficulty wrapping my brain around it.

For example, how does that jive with the one-way arrow that is entropy?
How does a continually creating universe agree with the conservation of energy?

[RadiantPhoenix]

As stated in Frank's post, a perfect vacuum is perfectly organized, and thus has no entropy. It is also a higher energy state than having a little bit of dust on the place.

[echoVanguard]

Despite the physics of vacuum energy, this raises the counter-question of where all this energy comes from. If the universe has an entropy of greater than 0, that energy had to come from somewhere. Why do we have laws of physics at all? What rules govern probability, causality, and relativity, and why do these rules function the way they do instead of in a completely random manner?

The scientific answer, of course, is res ipsa loquitur - it is enough for science to know a thing exists and how it works. But it often doesn't answer questions that investigate the roots of phenomena that we can't detect, and it doesn't make questions of underlying mechanics or intent any less relevant.

echo

[tzor]

As stated in Frank's post, a perfect vacuum is perfectly organized, and thus has no entropy. ...

There is only one problem with that argument (and it goes downhill from there) nature quantum physics abhors a perfect vacuum. (qv virtual particles) You really can't quit the game. There is literally no spot in the entire universe that doesn't have some particle or virtual particle passing through it.

Mind you, that was an interesting diversion but I'm not sure what that has to do with gambling on aleph null prizes.

[Username17]

If you have an empty space with no matter and no radiation, where is your energy coming from, spontaneous particle/antiparticle pairs?

Empty space with no matter and no radiation is a high energy state, and it decays into matter and radiation.

And, if so, this raises the counter-question of where all this energy comes from. If the universe has an entropy of greater than 0, that energy had to come from somewhere.

You have it exactly wrong. Entropy is negative energy. Adding entropy to the system reduces the energy of that system. Matter, light, and force come into existence to balance that change. When you add flame to a log you increase entropy and the heat and light come into being to pay for it. It still all adds up to zero, but the part where there is something in the universe instead of nothing has a huge negative sign, which is why it comes in so very very hot.

-Username17

[Shatner]

Various religions have posited that the universe had a beginning or was eternal, and they are both wrong. The universe is currently still beginning. All the time. And it will keep on doing that forever.

-Username17

My question is, how can the universe still be "beginning"? I accept that empty space is a high energy state and decays into a lower energy state + matter and stuff. However that seems like a one-way process. And sure we can sweep a section of space clean (which costs energy), causing it to bubble forth with new particles but it's still a decline down entropy.

So, if we had an initial high energy state and things trend towards lower energy states, how can this be anything other than a one-way trip towards entropic decay? That's what I'm not getting and that's why I'm wondering if I'm not understanding the point.

[echoVanguard]

Frank - that's very enlightening. I'm going to do some more research on the subject.

echo

[Username17]

Various religions have posited that the universe had a beginning or was eternal, and they are both wrong. The universe is currently still beginning. All the time. And it will keep on doing that forever.

-Username17

My question is, how can the universe still be "beginning"? I accept that empty space is a high energy state and decays into a lower energy state + matter and stuff. However that seems like a one-way process. And sure we can sweep a section of space clean (which costs energy), causing it to bubble forth with new particles but it's still a decline down entropy.

So, if we had an initial high energy state and things trend towards lower energy states, how can this be anything other than a one-way trip towards entropic decay? That's what I'm not getting and that's why I'm wondering if I'm not understanding the point.

The best way to look at it is in terms of signs. Let's call the entropic shift a negative energy change (because it is), and the creation of matter and light as a positive energy change (because it is). We know these things balance each other for a lot of reasons. The actual amount of energy in the universe could be any number, because all we get to see are those offsetting changes. And that's really important, because in all probability the actual starting amount of energy in the universe is zero.

So let's consider a piece of near empty space. It has some amount of stuff and some amount of entropy and that balances out. But the universe for whatever reason would rather have more entropy and more stuff in it - which also balances. So some particles show up spontaneously out of the damn void and the total energy of the space is still whatever it was - probably zero. Now here's the exciting part: that stuff that got created isn't stagnant, it's moving. And in the process of doing so, it's making more space to be in. And that space has zero energy in it. But now you have two units of near empty space that have rather less stuff and rather less entropy than the universe would prefer. So it keeps growing.

Point of fact: we're pretty sure that creating more empty space is ultimately energetically neutral, because the boundaries of the universe aren't slowing down in their continuous expansion. What's actually happening is that things are speeding up, with more empty space being added and filling itself with crap all over. Something that could only happen if empty space was zero or negative energy. But the empty space having zero energy doesn't stop the creation of "stuff" from being spontaneous, because the entropy and energy of creation makes a balanced equation regardless.

Most disturbing point about the universe: We see a universe that is expanding and accelerating and constantly creating itself and 13.7 billion years old. But the constant acceleration of the creation will eventually change what is visible from a planet (not Earth particularly, since it will have been devoured by the sun long before this becomes an issue). The rate of space being added between two points is proportional to the amount of space between those two points. As things get farther away from each other, more space is created per year pushing them away even faster. Given enough time (like 7 times the current observed life of the universe as I recall), the amount of space between us and galaxies on the far side of the universe will be so much that a whole light year of empty space will be added every year. Which means that even with the most powerful telescope, you could never see it.

This leaves open the very real possibility that the universe is a lot more than 13.7 billion years old, and that the 13.7 billion years old part is just the polyp we are in that is visible to us.

-Username17

[Neeeek]

Hmm. I actually use Pascal's Wager style logic on other topics. For instance, whether free will exists or not. I think it is better if people believe they have free will, because holding them accountable for their actions is completely fair if they do and questionable if they do not. Ironically, I don't actually think that free will exists, but that's something else entirely.

[RadiantPhoenix]

If there is no free will, then did you really have a choice about proceeding as though there were?

[DSMatticus]

Pascal's wager isn't necessary to resolve that problem, because if there is no free will, there is no morality. Society doesn't lock up bad people because they chose to do bad things. Society locks up bad people because morality is a useful construct that gives a reason to lock up/exclude/punish people who hurt us, and we are selfish, greedy, deterministic machines.

Morality already is an illusion. Using the illusion of free will to preserve the illusion of morality is... hilarious.

(Note: I like morality. I'm totally for locking up bad people. But I understand that the reason we have morality is social self-interest - we're a selfish creature, and to survive we have to cooperate. We can't cooperate if we don't trust eachother. So we're selfish, moral creatures.)

[Username17]

Pascal's wager isn't necessary to resolve that problem, because if there is no free will, there is no morality.

Unlike the earlier examples like playing the lottery and following the social contract which are in fact nothing like Pascal's Wager, the Free Will thing actually can be. Some people get a bug up their ass about punishments being "fair". For people who feel that way, Free Will is basically required for a system of justice to make any sense or be in any way palatable. So you bet on Fate or Free Will having no possibility of ever getting any evidence as to which is correct, but if you bet on Fate you gain nothing and lose the justification for justice, and that's bad.

Now it's not really a problem to construct a system of justice that is compatible with determinism. You punish people after the fact because if people know that you won't punish people they will commit more crimes. So deterministically, punishing people who in the past committed crimes deterministically will make people in the future commit less crimes just as deterministically. No "fault" is required.

I actually prefer a theory of justice based on an assumption of an underlying deterministic model, because it becomes subject to scientific analysis. If some punishments can be shown to have an overall effect that does not reduce crime (whether it be fines that are too light to stop companies from violating the law or death penalties that are too harsh that end up encouraging violence), the deterministic theory of justice can adapt and improve. The Free Will based theory of justice is caught up in an endless circle jerk about what law breakers "deserve", which means that it can't actually have a rational conversation about punishment.

But yeah, if people can't accept a deterministic theory of justice, they should probably pretend that there's free will and people are being punished because they personally deserve it. Of course, such people will also inevitably demand that we make the world toothless and blind because that is "fair".

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

That's sort of what I meant to imply, except you said it so much better. We don't need morality to get the effects of morality. We can just skip straight to the chase and have the effects of morality (a justice system), ignoring the ideas of free will, fault, and morality entirely.

Obviously, people will hate that, because we like thinking morality is meaningful (in the same way we like thinking we have free will). But there's absolutely no rational reason to believe either is the case, and even if you get rid of both morality and free will, you've still got functional societies that can objectively and legitimately lock up murderers. Not because they're "morally bad," or "made morally bad decisions," but because they're against the self-interest of that society. And it's a whole lot more meaningful to say the latter than either of the former.

[Swordslinger]

Pascal's wager is just crap. It's a cheap way to try to imply a conclusion by trying to pretend that there's only two choices.

The non-existence of the Christian god doesn't in any way mean that Zeus or Thor can't exist. Pascal erroneously assumes that if there's a god, it must be the Christian one.

[tzor]

"Free" will doesn't exist. You may not realize it, but everyone pays the "will" tax.

[Zinegata]

You'd be much better off with Paganism or Hinduism or even Judaism.

Strictly speaking Judaism also subscribes to "give all other Gods the finger" thing too. In fact, much of the "You shall have one God" portions of Christianity stem from the Old Testament - which is basically the Jewish part of the Bible.

Pretty much any monotheistic religion has this quality.

[Zinegata]

Obviously, people will hate that, because we like thinking morality is meaningful (in the same way we like thinking we have free will). But there's absolutely no rational reason to believe either is the case, and even if you get rid of both morality and free will, you've still got functional societies that can objectively and legitimately lock up murderers. Not because they're "morally bad," or "made morally bad decisions," but because they're against the self-interest of that society. And it's a whole lot more meaningful to say the latter than either of the former.

The problem with a society without morals is that while it can exist, it may not necessarily be a good place to live in.

The Aztecs for instance had a society which was based on the subjugation of various weaker states (or more correctly, tribes) culminating in mass spectacles and ritual sacrifice. Which kept the Aztecs in power, but sucked massively for those who have their still-beating hearts cut out.

There are also tons of societies that existed (and indeed, persisted) which was based on similar pretty nasty practices (i.e. Spartans killing Helots annually). Indeed, for these societies, these acts of systematic mass murder were seen as moral acts necessary to keep their society afloat - by keeping a large labor force cowed and submissive for the benefit of the society.

At the very minimum, you need to establish a list of taboos or social norms if you want a society without "morality". "This society will not practice slavery". "People will have equal rights". Which threads pretty close to having a system of morality.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Obviously, people will hate that, because we like thinking morality is meaningful (in the same way we like thinking we have free will). But there's absolutely no rational reason to believe either is the case, and even if you get rid of both morality and free will, you've still got functional societies that can objectively and legitimately lock up murderers. Not because they're "morally bad," or "made morally bad decisions," but because they're against the self-interest of that society. And it's a whole lot more meaningful to say the latter than either of the former.

The problem with a society without morals is that while it can exist, it may not necessarily be a good place to live in.

The Aztecs for instance had a society which was based on the subjugation of various weaker states (or more correctly, tribes) culminating in mass spectacles and ritual sacrifice. Which kept the Aztecs in power, but sucked massively for those who have their still-beating hearts cut out.

There are also tons of societies that existed (and indeed, persisted) which was based on similar pretty nasty practices (i.e. Spartans killing Helots annually). Indeed, for these societies, these acts of systematic mass murder were seen as moral acts necessary to keep their society afloat - by keeping a large labor force cowed and submissive for the benefit of the society.

At the very minimum, you need to establish a list of taboos or social norms if you want a society without "morality". "This society will not practice slavery". "People will have equal rights". Which threads pretty close to having a system of morality.

Systematic mass murder has been considered moral by pretty much every culture that has done it, from the Greeks and Aztecs to the Americans and Nazis. No culture can convince its constituents to accept mass murder without making up some moral justification.

Regardless of whether you say that you are against mass murder for 'moral reasons', 'philosophical reasons', or 'rational reasons', the important part is that you are against it.

[Vnonymous]

Zinegate, you can fuck right off. I'd happily live in a place with slavery and based on the subjugation of various weaker states. Rome was actually a pretty cool place, especially if you were a patrician. So was Athens, for that matter. And, you know, America.

[Zinegata]

I'd happily live in a place with slavery

Okay, Vnonymous wants to be a slave. I'm bidding $0.01 to own Vnonymous and make him my slave.

Anyone want to bid higher?

[/sacrasm]

Edit: Decided to lower the bid, as somebody who wants to live in a society with slavery is too fucking stupid to be worth much. Also, added the sarcasm tag in case people try to be deliberately obtuse.

[Vnonymous]

Obviously wanting to live in a society like America or Rome or Greece is idiotic. Really, almost every single society in the entire world used slavery in the past. and it most certainly does not mean that every single nation in history was comprised of objectively evil people. We've still got slaves in western countries as well, but their conditions are a bit better and the chains that they get locked up in tend to have different names and appearances. Until you have enough resources that you do not HAVE to work to live, you are effectively a slave. That's not something that can be said about the majority of a given population in just about any society these days.

[Zinegata]

Slaves aren't allowed to talk or protest while they are being auctioned off. Ten lashes for Vnonymous!