231–240 of 283 posts
> In this case, selling your soul is just a sin, a pretty bad one, but still a sin. In Catholicism and some Protestant traditions, you will enter into a state of Purgatory, (or purgatory-like phase) after death where you are cleansed of sins. Catholicism does not teach that you will necessarily enter Purgatory; if you are unrepented, into the eternal fire you will go. This isn't because Satan owns your soul, but beca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on your sins, wouldn't it? Murder would be one term, but working for an digital ads company, developing dark pattern UI, or social media companies would be at least half of eternity.
Is eternity countable? I really want to know what I am in for, ya know. Plus, depending on the properties of the eternal manifold, maybe I can perform some useful closed timelike computation while there and use that to get rich when/if I return.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is eternity countable? I really want to know what I am in for, ya know. Plus, depending on the properties of the eternal manifold, maybe I can perform some useful closed timelike computation while there and use that to get rich when/if I return.
It's countable. But you can always add 1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen the law of excluded middle used to deny the existence of platonic idealism. But I really don't get it. I'd love to understand your explanation better. If soul=psyche (as in Plato) then it seems easy to sell access to the attention. But if soul is referring to an ideal noetic form, then it's hard to understand how immaterial ownership would work without a material intermediary.
The axiom of excluded middle is that for every proposition, either that proposion is true or it is false. That's a universal quantification, so any counterexample makes it false. "This proposition is false." is such a counterexample (it can't be true, because than it's false and your logic is inconsistent, and it can't be false, because than it's true and ditto). This reasoning applies to pretty much any recognizable…
What about "this proposition is true"? Does it have a truth value?
If "this proposition is true" is true, then it's true. But if "this proposition is true" is false, then it's false.
It's self consistent whether it's true or false, but there's no way to determine if it is true or false.
I've been wondering what the formal name is for this kind of statement; surely it's not a paradox. Searching for "the opposite of a paradox" is apparently not the right query.
I feel like there's something questionable going on with the word "is" in either statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't the Bockchain be used to make sure souls can be optioned away only once? We would have finally found a use for the Blockchain after all!
Well, if you're powerful enough you can always fork to create Horcruxes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The axiom of excluded middle is that for every proposition, either that proposion is true or it is false. That's a universal quantification, so any counterexample makes it false. "This proposition is false." is such a counterexample (it can't be true, because than it's false and your logic is inconsistent, and it can't be false, because than it's true and ditto). This reasoning applies to pretty much any recognizable…
I understand what you're saying (in the first paragraph). I really do because I also went down this path. Self-reference is very tricky and it's way easier to trick yourself into proving things than to prove things. You are referencing Godel and there is a reason why he only proved 'non-provability', namely Tarski's undefinability theorem[1]. In short, you cannot express the truthiness of a statement in the system wi…
Of course not; I'm not talking about truthiness; I'm talking about truth.
> that what you stated above would be a huge result in mathematics
Not really; it's the same sort of trivially-blatantly-obvious thing as "two-boxing on Newcomb's problem is irrational" or "quantum superpositions never actually collapse".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The axiom of excluded middle is that for every proposition, either that proposion is true or it is false. That's a universal quantification, so any counterexample makes it false. "This proposition is false." is such a counterexample (it can't be true, because than it's false and your logic is inconsistent, and it can't be false, because than it's true and ditto). This reasoning applies to pretty much any recognizable…
>"This proposition is false." What about "this proposition is true"? Does it have a truth value? If "this proposition is true" is true, then it's true. But if "this proposition is true" is false, then it's false. It's self consistent whether it's true or false, but there's no way to determine if it is true or false. I've been wondering what the formal name is for this kind of statement; surely it's not a paradox. Sea…
I think it'll probably end up being neither true nor false too in most 'nice' systems (since general rules that could be used to prove or disprove it tend to set off things like Curry's paradox[0]), but unlike the other one it's (I think) dependent on the details of how you're defining things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand what you're saying (in the first paragraph). I really do because I also went down this path. Self-reference is very tricky and it's way easier to trick yourself into proving things than to prove things. You are referencing Godel and there is a reason why he only proved 'non-provability', namely Tarski's undefinability theorem[1]. In short, you cannot express the truthiness of a statement in the system wi…
> you cannot express the truthiness of a statement in the system within the system itself. Of course not; I'm not talking about truthiness; I'm talking about truth. > that what you stated above would be a huge result in mathematics Not really; it's the same sort of trivially-blatantly-obvious thing as "two-boxing on Newcomb's problem is irrational" or "quantum superpositions never actually collapse".
> "quantum superpositions never actually collapse"
Popsci is fun,
Never stop learning, even if it's obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About a dozen people sold their souls on Twitter a while back, so there's another venue. E.g. https://twitter.com/liminal_warmth/status/142135011902313677... Terms: https://liminalwarmth.com/contract-for-sale-of-soul/ Discussion: https://liminalwarmth.com/the-questionable-ethics-of-buying-... As a total atheist I'd still say don't do it. It's not farfetched to interpret the word 'soul' as a future high-res brain scan…
My argument against this is as follows: would you sell your dignity for $10? Now, my dignity doesn't exist in any sense which makes selling it meaningful. So it's kind of like free money. But really it isn't. There's someone out there who can say "I own samatman's dignity, and I got it for cheap". I'm a guy who sold his dignity, and everyone knows it. I feel like people would judge me for that. There are definitely p…
Some people, simps for example, don't even get $10 for themselvs, but instead pay to have their dignity removed from them.
(this post is meant to be half humorous, and half not humorous.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said. This article did not go over much of the problems with this stuff. Demons are notoriously child like creatures. Once summoned they will have the human try to put themselves in some position that they believe to be humiliating for the human. They hate the human for being naturally innately better than them even if less powerful. The article does not go over some of the acts humans are made to do. It’s quite…
I understand you can trap them in a iron pot, from what I vaguely remember people telling me in Karachi. Edit: unless I’m confusing this with the flying pot at night?