Discussion Mathematical proof on why suicide is irrational

[Johnzaga23]

I will attempt to prove mathematically, using probability theory and calculus, on why suicide might be a poor decision. I swear i don't do crack. This might be a whole lot of bullshit that i would want to delete afterwards, but yolo. I believe that this place is open to different perspectives and welcomes discussion for and against suicide. Also, I will assume two philosophical ideas. Agnostic atheism, and asymmetry of pain and pleasure. I figured that I can prove that suicide is irrational even without the asymmetry argument, but the maths are more complex, and i strive to keep it simple. So here we go:
Assume that there is an infinitely small probability for hell. Just as likely for a teapot to be orbiting Uranus. Very unlikely, but you never know. That's what the agnostic atheists believe. But the value of hell is minus infinity, meaning it is infinitely bad. So the probability is dx, which is an infinitely small number, but the value of the random variable is -inf. Now, if the probability of hell is dx, then the probability of anything else is 100%-dx or 1-dx. Anything else is most likely non-existent, but it's also the possibility of some other afterlife, like heaven or something else which could be good or bad. If we say that the nonexistence has a value of x, which is a real positive number, and that the value of anything else minus hell has an expected value of y, which is a real number which could be positive or negative depentend on the propabilities of different afterlifes which are unknown, then the total value is x+y with a propability of 1-dx. (x and y are real non infinite numbers because of the premise of the assymetry argument. Nor heaven or non-existence have infinite value). So the total expected value is (1-dx)*(x+y)+dx*(-inf) which is approximately ≈(x+y)-inf*dx where (x+y) is a real number which could be positive or negative, and -inf*dx which is undefined. So the total expected value is undefined. So the risk of suicide is undefined and therefore it's an irrational decision. To put it in more understandable words, its like opening a box, where there is no limit on how bad the item inside can be. This possibility of limitless disaster is what makes suicide irrational, even if the probability of such disaster is extremely low. I dont know if my theory makes any sense. I often make theories that I later revoke. But I wanted to share this one.

Long story short: the possibility of hell makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

Do not think of hell as in the traditional Christian form. Its just the limit of how bad the afterlife can get. Just keep in mind that the uncertainty of what comes after death is so wide that the worst possible outcome is possible, and that makes death scary enough to be avoided, even if the probability of such outcome is extremely low.

The asymmetry argument:

 

[Griever]

I've always hated math

 

[Carrot]

There is probably not much benefit from using math notations that not everyone can understand. You could have explained expected value in layman's terms.

I don't want to analyse the math, I don't like the notation (why use dx instead of something like P(X) for probability, dx is used for derivative), I don't like the formatting. Sorry, but it's obtuse.

Long story short: the possibility of hell makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

Funnily enough, I made a similar comment here at some point. It was something about related to believing in Christianity.

I could claim:
Living on Earth is a test to weed out the weak. You need to be strong, abusive, powerful. After death strong people will be rewarded. The weak will be send for eternal punishment and torture, they are worthless. The possiblity of such afterlife place makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

What makes your unproveable claim better than mine unproveable claim? Just because more people in the world believe your unproveable claim doesn't make it true. We don't know what happens after life, we can have beliefs and guesses. Your guess is as good as mine.

The asymmetry argument:
View attachment 166575

This is more about why "not being born in the first place is better" than about suicide.

 

[SVEN]

Challenging to "avoid death".

 

[CatLvr]

And yet we are ALL going to die -- whether it be by our own hand or Father Time or "Fate."

 

[Johnzaga23]

Challenging to "avoid death".

And yet we are ALL going to die -- whether it be by our own hand or Father Time or "Fate."

Indeed we all gonna die. The point is not to rush to it. Because it may not be the best thing that you could do now. Its irrational to not finish your meal to eat the next one, when the next one could be shit.

 

[CatLvr]

Indeed we all gonna die. The point is not to rush to it. Because it may not be the best thing that you could do now. Its irrational to not finish your meal to eat the next one, when the next one could be shit.

What??

 

[Johnzaga23]

There is probably not much benefit from using math notations that not everyone can understand. You could have explained expected value in layman's terms.

I don't want to analyse the math, I don't like the notation (why use dx instead of something like P(X) for probability, dx is used for derivative), I don't like the formatting. Sorry, but it's obtuse.

I wanted to make a point even if not everyone could undestand. The point is that the posibility of hell should make you avoid suicide, even though if the propability is low, because infinity times something close to zero is undefinable.

The possiblity of such afterlife place makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

so you agree with the premise.

What makes your unproveable claim better than mine unproveable claim? Just because more people in the world believe your unproveable claim doesn't make it true. We don't know what happens after life, we can have beliefs and guesses. Your guess is as good as mine.

its not about unprovable claims. Its about uncertainty. Its better to not open a box cause it might hide a spider.

This is more about why "not being born in the first place is better" than about suicide.

correct. But i use the same argument to show that the suffering of hell weights much more than the bliss of heaven and peacefullness of nonexistence. We can use different arguments for different reasons. I still believe that its better to not be born.

 

[Valhala]

The whole concept starts from the assumption that suicide is a priori bad, that is, that, hypothetically, it may lead to hell, where further analysis deals with the possibility of the existence or non-existence of some kind of hell. And what if suicide is justified, good or, in the final setting, it depends on the case to case. In this sense, the entire analysis presented above actually loses its relevance. Buddhist philosophy, for example, looks at this issue from a completely different angle, different from Christian, Islamic or even Hindu epistemology.
So, for example,Carl Becker in his book, "Breaking the Circle: Death and the Afterlife in Buddhism" examines the ethics of suicide from this tradition:
"There is nothing intrinsically wrong with taking one's own life, if not done in hate, anger, or fear. Equanimity or preparedness of mind is the main issue. The important consideration here is not whether the body lives or dies, but whether the mind can remain at peace and in harmony with itself. . . . the early Buddhist texts include many cases of suicide that the Buddha himself accepted or condoned. . . . suicide is never condemned per se; it is the state of mind which determines the rightness or wrongness of the suicide situation. "
Only in this case does the whole mathematical concept make no sense, and there are many other more or less relevant, traditional theories about the ethical component of the voluntary ending of life, where the Japanese Bushido tradition and its specific code on this issue are diametrically opposed to everything we know from the teachings of the world's most represented religious and theological systems. There are also some interesting individuals, thinkers whose ethical views on this issue are much closer to the Buddhist or Bushido point of view. (A. Camus, A. Jean, etc.).

 

[Praestat_Mori]

TL;DR !!!

"Mathematical proof on why suicide is irrational"

Poof why it is rational after a certain age is simply bc you are not able to save enough money (=the fuel of society and life within society!) even if you worked your ass off twice the possible amount of time before you retire bc of age.

Health aspects may also make suicide very rational long before the average age of retirement.

Suicide is always the rational decision in very many aspects of life - whether we can commit and go through the process is a totally different question.

Death is always better than to suffer!

 

[goodlifesurfaceskim]

When we die we are no longer us. And our experience will no longer be human. The beauty of this is that it still works with the concepts of heaven and hell. If you get brain fried on psychedelics enough like I did you might see it this way. Concepts and language, survival and reproducing, morals and ethics. We are an infinitely complex machine but our consciousness is not infinite. It supports itself so when one vital organ goes, so do the rest of the body. I think suicide is the ultimate betrayal to ones self since the part that wants suicide is only one part to the many parts of the self.. It might just be hell in our final moments to experience that kind of betrayal. But if our conscience is clear enough maybe it wont be so bad? Idk. Anyway it'll be over in a snap if the method is proficient

-My perspective

 

[TransTaxEvader]

jokes on you, I'm bad at math

 

[Withered]

So the risk of suicide is undefined and therefore it's an irrational decision.

1. The way you set up the integral allows for only indeterminacy of "-inf * dx"—which is horrible notation, but I digress—not indefinity.
2. You have restricted an extremely complex, certainly multivalued decision process toward suicide into a one-dimensional problem.
3. I cannot believe that you said what is in the quote above. "X is undefined, thus it is irrational, but in the psychological sense, not the mathematical sense." I feel like you just thought about suicide being possibly irrational (which is a hasty generalization, but I digress, again) and thought "oh irrational = math, so let me 'prove' it on a suicide site to get big boy bucks added to my ego!"

 

[CogitoMori]

To put it in more understandable words, its like opening a box, where there is no limit on how bad the item inside can be.

This means there's also no limit on how good it could be, which defeats your entire argument. If you know there is no chance for your life to be better, taking the unknown option is the rational answer, even though our humanity often makes us avoid unknowns, as trying the same thing over and over is insanity.

 

[butimstillsoblue]

I swear i don't do crack.

One doth protest too much, me thinks.

This might be a whole lot of bullshit

You're not wrong there!

I dont know if my theory makes any sense.

You're talking about teapots orbiting uranus and opening a box, where there is no limit on how bad the item inside can be...

Long story short: the possibility of hell makes suicide irrational, even if the probability is extremely low.

Long story short - you're trying to convince people of your opinion using a load of gibberish hogwash that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[CogitoMori]

Indeed we all gonna die. The point is not to rush to it. Because it may not be the best thing that you could do now. Its irrational to not finish your meal to eat the next one, when the next one could be shit.

If this one is already shit, why would I bother finishing it?

 

[Forever Sleep]

Why assume that all suicides automatically go to hell? Why assume that all people who die naturally avoid hell? Maybe I've already done enough in God's eyes to warrant sending me to hell- whether I suicide or not. I have serious doubts as to whether God even exists which is apparently an unforgiveable sin so- I imagine my goose is already cooked there.

I find a similar equation against natilism interesting. As in- being alive includes the possibility of suffering and going to hell- when you think about it. I suppose some will argue that their life has enough positives to weigh that out. But, in more basic terms, consider the following:

Positives in life: +1
Negatives in life: -1
Heaven: +1
Hell: -1

Parents therefore subject their children to the following scores. I'll always include a negative in life. Who goes through life without at least some negatives?

- Possitives and negatives to life: +1, -1 = 0. They go to heaven- yay! A total score of: 1.

- Possitives and negatives to life: +1, -1 = 0. They go to Hell- yikes! A total score of -1.

-Predominantly negatives in life: -1. They get into heaven though- back to zero.

-Predominantly negatives in life: -1. They go to hell so, a total of -2.

If we consider non existence to be zero, and we go by these very simplistic sums, only a quarter of people's lives might seem 'worth it' in terms of beating the odds. So, would- be parents risk a 75% chance of a negative outcome for their child. Shouldn't they go to hell for exposing an innocent child to such risks?

Why is a God that sends people to hell for all eternity for some minor misdemeanor entitled to be in heaven anyway? Surely, they are the biggest villain in all of this? Why would we even want to go to another domain that they rule over?

Who would you have more sympathy with? A fallen angel that got banished to hell forever for having a difference of opinion to God or, a God that throws such a hissy fit because someone disagrees with them?

Ok, you mentioned not focusing on religious versions of hell but- where else are they described/ needed? I don't recall any scientist finding evidence of such a place or, what might condemn us to it. So- hell only exists in the context of religion. It's a bit like seriously debating what the best food for a unicorn is. We don't know so many of the variables to be able to make a decision.

Truthfully though, the possibility of there being a God deeply troubles me in general. Hell seems like an inevitability no matter what I do. Not that I've lived an exceptionally sinful life. I've likely lived an exceptionally boring life comparatively speaking.

Besides, if the afterlife turns out to be as full of bullshit as this one. If paedophile mollestor priests have gotten into heaven because they sucked up to the boss while some of the kindest people I've ever known, who were also atheists as it happens plus, other suicidal people from this forum are now in hell, I think it may even be preferable to go there. Good company is so important. I've known plenty religious people I'd much rather avoid! Why assume heaven will be a good outcome either? I'm hoping there will be nothing personally.

 

[22yearsbroken]

This is the " Uncertainty priciple" whuch pretty much cancels out all mathmatical predictive models...

 

[Carrot]

I wanted to make a point even if not everyone could undestand. The point is that the posibility of hell should make you avoid suicide, even though if the propability is low, because infinity times something close to zero is undefinable.

If you consider hell, why don't you consider other just as unproveable possibilities? The possibility of Valhalla should make you avoid suicide, even though if the propability is low. You should die in combat instead.

so you agree with the premise.

its not about unprovable claims. Its about uncertainty. Its better to not open a box cause it might hide a spider.

correct. But i use the same argument to show that the suffering of hell weights much more than the bliss of heaven and peacefullness of nonexistence. We can use different arguments for different reasons. I still believe that its better to not be born.

I disagree with the premise that "suicide is irrational". Here is the comment I was talking about, now I would word it a bit better. It's more about trying to understand why somebody would believe in christianity. If it turns out to be made up, doesn't matter. If it turns out to be true, you avoid hell. No matter how bad your life is, eternal suffering is worse.

'Atheism' and freedom in CTB + discussion of fear about potentially unfavorable afterlife?

Small ramble. So faith is an interesting thing to me. As long as the practices do not involve harming others, I respesct the way that people genuinely believe in something so loyally and make it part of their lives. Personally I believe that religion would have overloaded me ultimately. That...

sanctioned-suicide.net

its not about unprovable claims. Its about uncertainty. Its better to not open a box cause it might hide a spider.

You start with an unproveable assumption that hell might exist. That is a problem.

 

[catfriend]

Indeed we all gonna die. The point is not to rush to it. Because it may not be the best thing that you could do now. Its irrational to not finish your meal to eat the next one, when the next one could be shit.

it is, however, rational to not finish your meal if it's making you sick.

 

[rainw3rld4ngel]

I wouldn't bother putting infinitesimally unlikely scenarios of infinite value into my calculator and basing any decisions off that.
You could come up with an infinite number of equally unlikely scenarios (that even have nothing to do with an afterlife) (perhaps aliens torturing me for eternity if i turn 24) before making any decision if you really thought this process meant anything.

but you don't factor a dumb scenario like that into your decision-making, as you don't see any reason to believe it (in the same way an athiest might consider religious ideas)
In creating this thought experiment, it sounds like you believe there's a tangible possibility of an afterlife, even if you can't predict what it looks like. It's like you assigned infinitesimal value to the christian potrayals of one, but added up all the other infinite possible ways it might be like into an aggregate that you consider as a tangible possibility.
Do you have a reason to believe in the possibility of an afterlife ? maybe you're just considering this thought experiment due to superstition, cultural myth, rather than considering the possibility of me being tortured eternally by aliens.

If you think it's worth crunching the numbers of every absurd scenario with no reason to believe in, then add my one about aliens onto ur spreadsheet as well. Perhaps your finite time on earth isnt worth wasting thinking about the infinite number of infinitismally unlikely scenarios unless something has more reason than that to believe in it.



oh and im no mathematician but im gonna say, if something has infinite value, but infinitesimal probability, perhaps those two things cancel each other out....

 

[Johnzaga23]

This means there's also no limit on how good it could be, which defeats your entire argument. If you know there is no chance for your life to be better, taking the unknown option is the rational answer, even though our humanity often makes us avoid unknowns, as trying the same thing over and over is insanity.

because of the asymmetry of pain and pleasure argument. I think i made this clear. I can prove it even without the assymetry argument, but its more complex. So no, hell beats heaven

 

[CogitoMori]

because of the asymmetry of pain and pleasure argument. I think i made this clear. I can prove it even without the assymetry argument, but its more complex. So no, hell beats heaven

So doesn't life automatically also "beat" heaven since life guarantees pain and heaven promises bliss? A chance of something better is better than life so suicide would still be the most rational option.

 

[bankai]

You lost me at mathematically.

 

[Poiter1987]

One doth protest too much, me thinks.



You're not wrong there!



You're talking about teapots orbiting uranus and opening a box, where there is no limit on how bad the item inside can be...



Long story short - you're trying to convince people of your opinion using a load of gibberish hogwash that makes absolutely no sense.

Funny

 

[Intoxicated]

Assume that there is an infinitely small probability for hell. Just as likely for a teapot to be orbiting Uranus. Very unlikely, but you never know.

That's a wrong "math" ) Infinitely small probability is not the same is "very unlikely", since the former means "less than any positive probability, that is, zero chance", while the latter means "some small non-zero probability".

Nor heaven or non-existence have infinite value

That's a very questionable assumption. There may be heaven offering you infinite bliss and having infinitely positive value to you. Maybe you can't imagine what infinite bliss could be, but this doesn't actually mean it doesn't exist. At this point, your "mathematical proof" can be withdrawn as invalid, since you can potentially deal with two opposite infinities, without knowing which one is more or less likely to take place than the other.

So the risk of suicide is undefined and therefore it's an irrational decision.

The risk of not committing suicide is also undefined. Maybe there is a weird god who rewards everyone who commits suicide and punishes everyone else by exposing to infinite suffering. You can't reasonably deny this probability.

 

[DOHARDTHINGS24]

I'm lost.
Was the point that you're cleverer than the rest of us because you used maths?
Or cleverer than the rest of us by using this as a tool to engage us & waste our time?
My money's on the latter, so congratulations, well done, you got me, even when I know better, ffs.
Goodnight SaSu, I'm out.

 

[Carrot]

For me it doesn't matter if it seems clever or not, although there are many ways to make your point, some of them are more inflammatory than others. It's simply incorrect. You start with an assumption of which probability cannot measure and then come to some conclusion based on that assumption.

 

[imOK]

Interesting application of decision theory and probability. My rebuttal (I will not use mathematical notation and hope people not into maths can follow along):

You posit that the probability of hell is an "infinitely small" number and its value is infinetly negative. However, multiplying an infinitesimal by an infinite value is mathematically undefined without context. Expected utility theory (which you're implying here) breaks down when infinities are introduced because it leads to paradoxes. For example: If hell has a value of negative infinity, then even if its probability is 1 in a googolplex (an insanely large number, google it) the expected utility would still be negative infinity. This would make any action with a non-zero chance of hell (no matter how small) irrational, not just suicide. Walking outside, eating food, or even breathing could carry some infinitesimal risk of leading to hell (e.g., via unintended consequences or divine punishment). That would lead to the result that no action is justifiable.

This basically reads like a variant of Pascal's Wager, which has been extensively critiqued. If you're agnostic about hell, you must also be agnostic about the possibility of an infinitely good afterlife (e.g., heaven). If hell has almost zero probability and -inf value, then heaven could have the same probability and value. The expected utility would then be "(infinitely bad) times (almost zero)" plus "(infinitely good) times (almost zero)", which is also undefined. You can't arbitrarily ignore positive infinites while focusing on negative ones. There even could be afterlives with finite but extreme suffering, or afterlives where suicide is rewarded. Without knowing the probabilities or values, the calculation is meaningless.

Philosophically, you assign non-existence a finite value (x), but even this is contentious. Many philosophers argue that non-existence has no value, not even neutral, because there is nobody to experience it. If non-existence is valueless (x=0), and other afterlives are uncertain, the calculation changes further.

Even if we grant that hell is a logical possibility, its probability is not just infinitesimal but arguably zero because:
1. There is no empirical evidence for hell (or any afterlife).
2. The concept of hell is culturally contingent (not all religions have it).
3. If we're agnostic about unobserved entities, we must also be agnostic about infinitely many other speculative horrors (e.g., "torture universes," "anti-heavens"). Assigning non-zero probability to all of them would be absurd.

Your argument assumes that continuing life has a finite cost (the pain one wants to escape), while death has an undefined risk. But if life is sufficiently unbearable (e.g., unrelenting torture), the certainty of extreme suffering may outweigh an undefined risk. This is not an irrational gamble!

In short: Your argument completely ignores the general mathematical incoherence of "infinity times almost zero" which also somehow outweights speculative, unverifiable risks. You also somehow abritarily priviledge negative infinities over positive ones. Granted, it's a creative theory but incomplete and defintively not a conclusive proof. Sorry!

 

[Johnzaga23]

That's a wrong "math" ) Infinitely small probability is not the same is "very unlikely", since the former means "less than any positive probability, that is, zero chance", while the latter means "some small non-zero probability".

I'll assume that you haven't taken calculus yet.

That's a very questionable assumption. There may be heaven offering you infinite bliss and having infinitely positive value to you. Maybe you can't imagine what infinite bliss could be, but this doesn't actually mean it doesn't exist. At this point, your "mathematical proof" can be withdrawn as invalid, since you can potentially deal with two opposite infinities, without knowing which one is more or less likely to take place than the other.

its called an assumption for a reason. But i can prove it without the assumption but its more complex.

The risk of not committing suicide is also undefined. Maybe there is a weird god who rewards everyone who commits suicide and punishes everyone else by exposing to infinite suffering. You can't reasonably deny this probability.

the risk is undifined, therefore you shouldn't take the risk. If it was a stock in the stock market, no one would buy.