Belief paradox

[mr_yogurt]

If what happens to you after you die is what you believe will happen to you after you die, what will happen after you die if you believe that what happens to you after you die is what you believe happens to you after you die?

Maybe you're reincarnated and you get to try again

What do you guys think?

Sorry if someone has come up with this a paradox with a similar basis, but I had to ask.

I wasn't sure if I should put this here or in the Science Labs, so I stuck it here.

[Nuke]

wheres a tibetan monk when you need one?

[CaptainKipard]

That question includes a tautology and has unstated premises. It's not a paradox. Long story short the answer is: Whatever you think will happen to you after you die.

Logic is so awesome. It's like maths. You can simplify and rearrange statements just like an equation. I deed it.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[mr_yogurt]

That question includes a tautology and has unstated premises. It's not a paradox. Long story short the answer is: Whatever you think will happen to you after you die.

Logic is so awesome. It's like maths. You can simplify and rearrange statements just like an equation. I deed it.

I guess you could say it's like saying, "this statement is true". But what happens when we try to measure whether or not that statement is true?

[GreeningGalaxy]

I guess you could say it's like saying, "this statement is true". But what happens when we try to measure whether or not that statement is true?

Then we find that the statement is true.

If we can't be sure about that, we can't be sure about anything, and not being sure about anything is no fun.

--Super retroactive edit!--

One could also find that the statement is false, in which case the statement's fallacy would not be upheld by the statement, still resulting in nothing resembling a paradox.

If we can't be sure if falsehood is different from truth, then we can't be sure about anything. Disregard previous statement suggesting that 'this statement is true' had to be true.

Edited September 21, 2014 by GreeningGalaxy

[CaptainKipard]

I guess you could say it's like saying, "this statement is true". But what happens when we try to measure whether or not that statement is true?

No this is completely irrelevant, because of the way you started that question. Nothing needs to be measured.

You started the question with:

If what happens to you after you die is what you believe will happen to you after you die,

meaning that reality is determined by your beliefs. (I don't think that's true, but I'll go along for the sake of argument)

So the premise is: What you believe about the afterlife will become your afterlife.

The second premise needed for an argument is not present, namely the actual belief.

After that the whole thing falls apart:

... you believe that what happens to you after you die is what you believe happens to you after you die...

That's a tautology. X=X. That's just true.

So to simplify:

what will happen after you die if [True]

I'm not even sure how to answer something like that. [True] can be a third premise, but it doesn't actually impact the outcome in any way.

So really the question you asked can be simplified like this:

"If what you believe about the afterlife, becomes the afterlife for you then what will happen to you in the afterlife"

And the answer is, as I said:

"Whatever you believe about the afterlife"

And even more simply:

If X = your belief, then what is X.

Answer: Your belief.

LOGIC!!

Also the way you arranged that question is a bit messy. You presented the premise first, but then included the tautology after the question, and really it should have been at the beginning where it's easy to see it's purpose. This is a tactic that dishonest debaters and charlatans often use to confuse people. Don't do it.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Aningaaq]

Sounds like reincarnation to me. That is my answer.

[CaptainKipard]

Sounds like reincarnation to me. That is my answer.

I feel like I'm wasting my time here.

I'm not sure how else to explain this.

This is just a little exercise in logic. And I don't mean common sense, because those are not the same thing. Not even close.

Like I said. One of the premises is not stated, but you can plug your own predicates in there, if you want. Nothing in there even implies reincarnation.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[mr_yogurt]

I feel like I'm wasting my time here.

I don't know how else to explain this.

This is just a little exercise in logic. And I don't mean common sense, because those are not the same thing. Not even close.

Like I said. One of the premises is not stated, but you can plug your own predicates in there, if you want. Nothing in there even implies reincarnation.

I wrote reincarnation mostly as a joke.

But the issue I have is that if you believe anything else, what happens is completely straightforward.

But once you believe what I stated earlier, there becomes a problem.

I understood that the question breaks logic.

But there is nothing wrong with a universe that has what you think is your reality after you die become your reality. (that may not be our universe, but we aren't necessarily talking about our universe)

And there is nothing wrong with believing that.

But when you put both of them together the universe can't really do anything with you when you die.

I was trying to get at this and start discussion about it (what's wrong with talking about paradoxes (even if you say this isn't one, it is at least similar)?)

Santa Claus is real if and only if the statement "this statement is true" is true.

Is Santa Claus real?

^ question that comes from the same line of thought.

[Brethern]

There's a saying ignorance is bliss.

When you start analyzing something eventually it's going to get to a point where you are over thinking it and are not going to benefit from it.

[CaptainKipard]

But when you put both of them together the universe can't really do anything with you when you die.

Both of what? You can't be so vague when you're trying to talk about abstract concepts like argument composition.

I was trying to get at this and start discussion about it (what's wrong with talking about paradoxes (even if you say this isn't one, it is at least similar)?)

Words have usages. You can call it a paradox if you want but that stops the discussion, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

What I said still stands. It's not a paradox, it's a badly formed question, the answer to which is a logical argument which I explained above.

Santa Claus is real if and only if the statement "this statement is true" is true.

Is Santa Claus real?

^ question that comes from the same line of thought.

It's from the same line of thought, as everything else. It's just a logic exercise.

The statement "This statement is true" is self-referential, and in this particular case it can be either true or false and it's up to you to decide.

So if you want the statement "This statement is true" to be false then Santa is not real.

and if you want the statement "This statement is true" to be true then Santa is real.

Also not a paradox.

There's a saying ignorance is bliss.

When you start analyzing something eventually it's going to get to a point where you are over thinking it and are not going to benefit from it.

This doesn't make any sense.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[GreeningGalaxy]

I feel like a lot of people on this thread are trying to call the principle of explosion on non-contradictions.

In the event that X does not equal X, Occam's razor would seem to suggest that it's more likely that you're doing it wrong, and less likely that you broke logic.

What some people are saying here is that, since X does equal X, that it obviously means they broke logic.

That's not how logic works.

[CaptainKipard]

To be honest I'm not sure what anyone in this thread is trying to say. I have a fairly solid grasp on logic, and I can usually tell when people are committing logical fallacies, or when they know so little about logic in the first place that what they say is "not even wrong". That's a real phenomenon by the way. It happens when statements are so incoherent that it's difficult to figure out whether or not a mistake has been made.

[mr_yogurt]

Both of what? You can't be so vague when you're trying to talk about abstract concepts like argument composition.

Words have usages. You can call it a paradox if you want but that stops the discussion, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

What I said still stands. It's not a paradox, it's a badly formed question, the answer to which is a logical argument which I explained above.

Actually, now that I went and checked, it does fit the definition of a paradox.

From Google:

par·a·dox

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

The conclusion is senseless, no matter how you look at it.

Unless you want to say the premises are unacceptable.

Premise 1 - There is a universe in which the afterlife of a person becomes what that person believed the afterlife would be when he dies.

Premise 2 - In this universe there is a person who believes that Premise 1 is true.

It's from the same line of thought, as everything else. It's just a logic exercise.

The statement "This statement is true" is self-referential, and in this particular case it can be either true or false and it's up to you to decide.

So if you want the statement "This statement is true" to be false then Santa is not real.

and if you want the statement "This statement is true" to be true then Santa is real.

What makes it my decision?

To be honest I'm not sure what anyone in this thread is trying to say. I have a fairly solid grasp on logic, and I can usually tell when people are committing logical fallacies, or when they know so little about logic in the first place that what they say is "not even wrong". That's a real phenomenon by the way. It happens when statements are so incoherent that it's difficult to figure out whether or not a mistake has been made.

Now you're just downright insulting me. Why.

[CaptainKipard]

... a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

It's none of those.

The conclusion is senseless, no matter how you look at it.

I don't even know what that means. Logic is not dependent on "how you look at it". It's objective.

Unless you want to say the premises are unacceptable.

Premise 1 - There is a universe in which the afterlife of a person becomes what that person believed the afterlife would be when he dies.

Premise 2 - In this universe there is a person who believes that Premise 1 is true.

Both of those premises are fine, and if you insert them into the syllogism I described then you'll get the conclusion I wrote.

What makes it my decision?

The fact that it's a self-referential, non-contradictory statement. It's your decision for the purpose of drawing conclusions from an argument. I'm not sure how else to explain it, other than to repeat that the statement "This statement is true" can be true or false without leading to an infinite regress.

By the way if you want to know what a paradox is, it's a self-referential, contradictory statement or argument, like the Liar Paradox: "This statement is false"

Now you're just downright insulting me.

Weeeeell that wasn't my intention, but I can see how might read that subtext.

I'll just leave.

[Aningaaq]

I feel like I'm wasting my time here.

I'm not sure how else to explain this.

This is just a little exercise in logic. And I don't mean common sense, because those are not the same thing. Not even close.

Like I said. One of the premises is not stated, but you can plug your own predicates in there, if you want. Nothing in there even implies reincarnation.

This is just a little exercise in logic for yourself but not everyone works that way in all cases. I find your explanation interesting and you explained it well. But I am allowed to insert my own understanding or perception without having to feel like I'm incapable of understanding what you posted. I wasn't even replying to you my friend. Carry on.

[cantab]

If what happens to you after you die is what you believe will happen to you after you die, what will happen after you die if you believe that what happens to you after you die is what you believe happens to you after you die?

Nothing, because what you describe amounts to believing in no particular thing happening.

[WinkAllKerb'']

Good news folks : This thread just got the BPUA.

Yup you know the "Beliefs Proof Universal Approval" a fresh new label that deserve much love xD.

[megatiger78]

Do not think about this ofr more than 5 seconds to prevent your brain exploding!

[GreeningGalaxy]

Thread summary:

"Look! A paradox! It's logically a paradox."

"Actually, it's not a paradox because it's not even contradictory"

"Love this paradox!"

"Oh my god if you think about it too hard you'll END THE UNIVERSE xD XD"

"..but it's not a paradox-"

"LOVE THIS PARADOX!!"

Edited September 20, 2014 by GreeningGalaxy

[CaptainKipard]

LMAO! I'm glad at least one person is on the ball. That's a perfect summary.

[mr_yogurt]

Thread summary:

"Look! A paradox! It's logically a paradox."

"Actually, it's not a paradox because it's not even contradictory"

"Love this paradox!"

"Oh my god if you think about it too hard you'll END THE UNIVERSE xD XD"

"..but it's not a paradox-"

"LOVE THIS PARADOX!!"

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121203111622/smuff/images/c/c8/Abandon_thread.gif

LMAO! I'm glad at least one person is on the ball. That's a perfect summary.

When I said "paradox", I didn't necessarily mean strictly a logical paradox.

You guys are being pedantic.

See "Ship of Theseus".

Called a paradox, and yet nobody calls them out on it.

[Capt.Joseph Kerbertson]

I assumed that religion was not a topic of interest on the boards.

Here's how I see it. Do you remember life in 1887? No, because you can't, you weren't in existence. It's going to be the same when you die. You won't remember it because you'll no longer exist.

Enjoy all that life has to offer NOW. Don't bet the farm on having a do over. If you aren't happy now, fix it. Do the things you've always wanted to do but somehow managed to talk yourself out of because "stuff". Earn that long sleep at the end.

[mr_yogurt]

I assumed that religion was not a topic of interest on the boards.

Here's how I see it. Do you remember life in 1887? No, because you can't, you weren't in existence. It's going to be the same when you die. You won't remember it because you'll no longer exist.

Enjoy all that life has to offer NOW. Don't bet the farm on having a do over. If you aren't happy now, fix it. Do the things you've always wanted to do but somehow managed to talk yourself out of because "stuff". Earn that long sleep at the end.

We're not discussing religion.

We're discussing a hypothetical situation.

[CaptainKipard]

You guys are being pedantic.

Oh...My....Spaghetti.

Don't you realise that without pedantry modern science, engineering and philosophy wouldn't exist?

Words have specific usages. You want to discuss a lofty topic here, but you're using colloquial meanings in places where they don't belong. That is equivocation, and it's yet another logical mistake.

Here. Equivocation.

And here. A list of other logical mistakes to avoid. Honestly when I first started memorising those I was SHOCKED at how often people do this. It's not even funny! It's a bloody tragedy that this isn't taught in schools.

I don't know whether the Ship of Theseus is a paradox, but after reading the wiki article, I don't see anyone denying that it's a paradox, and I have to agree. The statement "A ship that has all it's parts replaced is the same ship" is self contradictory.