User:BalokNB/sandbox/A Scallywag's Wager

The Scallywag's Wager new article content ...

A Scallywag's Wager is a term used to philosophically describe the inadvertent lack of faith. The term is used as a counter argument to Pascal's Wager, Pascal puts forth that a rational person should make the decision to live as if God exists and seek to believe in God because even if God does not actually exist, such a person will have only minuscule or finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell). The Scallywag puts forth the idea that each decision is inextricably bound to a cost/benefit analysis which determines the result of the decision making and that the decision to put faith in a singular container, object, philosophical or cognitive construct cannot be reduced to a binary decision by reductio ad absurdum due to the assumption that in life (a set of cardinal decisions made along a trajectory in space=time) each decision is processed,registered and used to inform future decisions. From here we postulate that the binary formulation affects the decision making towards a positive outcome which is the possession of belief/faith(b/f, these will be used almost interchangeably) and has therefore effected socio-cultural game theory by mirror neurons and peoples practicing behaviors which are salient and are judged to be beneficial aka following a religion (FaR). FaR is used to designate a set of behaviors which are carried out upon an order analogous to a program which once ordered to run will follow certain layed out logical steps based on logic gates to achieve the intended outcome.

The meat of the argument is found in the statistical certainty and precision in each probability measure made for each decision. It rests on the assumption that becoming is the measure of being (a notion which is quite counterintuitive for many reasons) and that being and becoming are both measurable objects which can be plotted on a "discretely continuous line" by which we mean they are scalar and spectral and can occupy more than one point at a time.

The major victory in philosophical thought comes with the realization that consciousness is relative and that it can be described mathematically by its units "conto" which then can be transformed through the lens of perception and calculus to be discrete packages in singular instances of space-time. This is important because PW could not be solved even after the Nietzhcean "death of God" for it necessitated the death of the "I" or of the subjective and autobiographical self which lies at the heart of Chalmers' "Hard Problem". Daniel Dennet resolved this in 1991 with Consciousness Explained and further reconciled degrees of consciousness and free will in a moneistic and naturalistic framework in "Freedom Evolves". We now know that the soul or conscious awareness is brought about by the combined physiology of an intelligent object and the salient environment which are entrained by their shared existence or rather their proximity in space-time. Hence each conglomeration of particles will make increasingly similar decisions if their internal structure are increasingly similar and if their external environments are increasingly similar. By this logic we can account for why people of a certain generation think about things in certain ways, because they were all shaped in similar environments, twin studies are the closest we can get to objectivity in medicine. We would also venture to say that a VonNeuman machince which was installed the same memories by communication and transference of integrated information would act in the exact same way as the human or whichever object the phi was removed from(refer to AlphaGo)

Axiom 1 −the existence of an intelligence/conscious being/agent of decision/ observer (all terms to define common conception of a unit of consciousness which we will interpret in monistic terms: all particles of the set of particles in existence (the universe) are part and parcel of consciousness or intelligence) has a necessary condition of continuous analysis of the probability space in order to compute the sample space in fact the being is defined by its ability to become in the philosophical sense. possession of b/f (a singular set of algorithms) has a scalar and spectral identity as opposed to a simple 1/0 binary

There has been much debate as to the logical foundations of Pascal's Wager and as to whether the concept of infinity can be judged, if so then it would seem obvious to a rational observer that less pain is preferable to more pain.

There are two inherent problems with Pascal's Wager:

    the first is found in the deaths or pain which are accrued due to the belief in a particular God.
    the second being the ambiguity of the God he is referring to, not in the historical sense for it is quite clear that he was referring to faith in the judeo-christian God to be the most advisable from his perspective but can a similar human of a different socio-cultural and geographic background apply the same wager to his philosophy and therefore his/her subsequent philosophical thought and decisions.

Both of these problems point to a central problem with the Wager which is its' reliance on the mathematical logic that:

    PW  ===>   if(pain > 1){
                   cout   "I should and want to believe in God"}

 This logic can be seen to deteriorate under two conditions:

     1: The judeo-christian God was the incorrect God to place faith in and now the pain is the sum of both decision costs aka one has lived a life pained by the assiduous law-abidance which was falsely advertised to confer protection from hell or eternal suffering so now the self must endure pain which is equal to :  
                         A →        p = ((mediocre life) + (eternal suffering in hell)) = ((p ≥ 1) + (p ≡ ∞)) 
                         B →        p ≥ ∞

                Statement A underlines the mathematical logic used to obtain a larger than infinite amount of pain if the decision was made to 
                 possess belief in the incorrect God. Statement B goes to show that there is a large range of pain with the assumption that living a 
                life null of pain by acting in the most hedonistic and utilitarian fashion would confer null pain (p ≡ 0) throughout a lifetime.

By this premise we assume that possession (of faith) redeems one physically and spiritually but what is of more prescient concern is that it philosophically confers epistemology and validity to the proposition that and greater risk/ 

The diametric equivalent of philosophical thought applied to the premise of which decision to make in the face of eternity or rather a binary choice between possessing a belief/faith and not possessing it.

    SW

External links

• www.example.com