Please read this entire post.

I don't want this thread to be about whether my proof is right so I'm not going to link it sorry (truly sorry seriously). I want this thread to be about assuming that I have such a proof and it's sound how would I use that fact to die?

I've considered proving it to people who would let me die at their house if I proved it to them but then they have a dead body at their house they have to explain to the cops.

If I were to do it at a motel it would have to be one with high speed internet as I can't stand the misery of dying by dehydration (one of the few/only methods I'm comfortable with) unless I have something to distract me like watching anime on my computer.

Any bright ideas?

EDIT: My mom could call the motels in the area though and ask if I was there and then my plan would be destroyed so maybe the motel idea isn't as foolproof as I may have thought, even with high speed internet.

closed as off-topic by Dave, Rex Kerr, Swami Vishwananda, iphigenie, jeroenk May 31 '15 at 8:27

  • This question does not appear to be about philosophy within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because I don't see the philosophical issue. – Dave May 31 '15 at 2:54
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about legal and practical issues; the possibly interesting philosophical topic (i.e. is it possible to have a highly reliable indication that there is an afterlife, and furthermore that such afterlife is paradise) has already been declared to be off limits. There are other issues (e.g. if this paradise-afterlife is eternal but not absolutely certain, is it really a good bet to rush it?) that also seem ruled out. – Rex Kerr May 31 '15 at 3:30
  • 1
    @user14840: First, note that you have rights. Then, think about this: you may hurt your parents far more by committing suicide, than by contacting people who can help you (even by getting you transferred to a foster home). There is no good solution, but there are some extremely sub-optimal, ungood solutions, including the one you sketch here. Simply, suicide is never a solution. Try something else. Try contacting people who can help more than we can at SO. – Cheers and hth. - Alf May 31 '15 at 4:09

Even in the hard-to-believe case that you did have a solid proof that the afterlife was 99.99% likely to be paradise, it would still be the wrong move to commit suicide. The reason is that nothing that happens to you in life is going to rob you of the opportunity to die, nor, assuming the afterlife is eternal, does extending your life diminish your afterlife. Therefore cutting your life short does nothing but rob you of whatever satisfaction might be found in your future life without any actual gain.

Picture it this way. There's a timer that will go off sometime in the next hour. When it goes off, there's a 9/10 chance you'll get $100. Until the timer goes off, you can busy yourself searching for pennies that might be found on the ground. However, you can also set the timer off early, in which case you'll have the exact same 9/10 chance at the $100. You'll always maximize your gain by letting the timer go off naturally, and by making best use of the time you have to collect pennies. In 1 out of 10 cases, those pennies you collect will be all the gain you get.

I don't happen to agree that this is a reasonable way to look at the afterlife but it's structurally identical to how you framed your beliefs.

  • 1
    This assumes lack of time-discounting in utility, which is contrary to almost all empirical and experimental evidence on human behavior. Furthermore, it also assumes a lack of opportunity cost of time itself. Suppose that time in the afterlife can also be spent to "collect pennies" in your sense, but you are more "efficient" in doing so in the afterlife, which is a natural assumption about paradise. Then consider there is no finite ending to the afterlife, which follows from its definition. – Yang May 31 '15 at 5:03
  • 1
    @Yang - It's a critical issue that should be addressed in such an answer. That said, temporal discounting makes rational actors act against their future self-interest if it's merely time instead of time-as-a-proxy-for-uncertainty. (This statement requires an argument which alas is too large to fit in this comment.) In this case, the uncertainty is given as a premise, so you can deal with it directly. Thus, you might recognize that temporal discounting will make you want to do something against your own (future) interest, but you should still advise the rational course of action. – Rex Kerr May 31 '15 at 16:41
  • @RexKerr Good point. – Yang Jun 1 '15 at 1:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.