2 Destinies Thought Experiment

Suppose that a supremely powerful entity (of a sort to be determined by your own imagination) is offering you the choice between two destinies (or a destiny and an anti-destiny, as the case may be), manifested as buttons for ease of comprehension. The first button is labeled "obliteration" and will, as labeled, utterly obliterate you from every possible timeline. You will have never been, you will not currently be, and you will never be again. The second button is labeled "transcendence" and will cause you to ascend to a higher level of being. What this actually entails is impossible for you to understand at your current level but can perhaps be approximated by your imagination, as dictated by your metaphysical beliefs, etc. It is guaranteed that you will be "greater," but not that you will be "better," although you may be. Importantly, it is guaranteed that there will be a strong connection between the current you and the being which you become, although it may be more like the connection between seed and tree (or fertilized egg and multicellular human adult) than between cub and bear. You know that "neither" and "both" are not valid options. Describe your thought process and ultimate decision. I'm inclined to think that one's answer to this thought experiment reveals something about that person's approach to living in general. Of note is the fact that both options represent a release from one's current, incidental circumstances and the concerns that accompany them. Finally, I'd like to suggest that this question is well-suited for the users of this site, as the concepts of suicide and transcendence appear prominently in Serial Experiments Lain.

transcendence. I'm not suicidal.

Based on your description the buttons are a ruse, and before I explain let's become clear on two things. First, nothingness is omnipotent by virtue of not having any form or quality restricting it from so. Second, there is no difference between "nothing" and "everything" as the latter can escape any form or quality as long as there's another possible one (e.g. as long as there is "lambda" and "anything else", "everything" will be a bigger box including those two and any ether they are in). The only quality/form "everything" cannot escape is "nothing" which lacks form, and whatever "nothing" does with its omnipotence was by definition contained and done by "everything". With that said, we can now see that your buttons are a sort of ruse or IQ test. Picking the "Obliteration" button delivers you instantly to "nothing" and thus omnipotence by relieving you of any form or quality (aka limitation) that you ever had or will have. You obviously lose any reason to have this omnipotence as well, but who the fuarrrk cares anyway. Meanwhile "Transcendence" is the first step on a path of infinite steps in transcending, converging towards omnipotence by removing small limitations step by step. You will not completely transcend until you've completely gotten rid of your form (past and future) and thus reached exactly what "Obliteration" would have done in the first place. A nihilist or an idealist would probably be okay with infinite pointless steps. I'm a pyrrhonist though and it seems to me that inefficiency annoys me, so I'd smack Obliteration with a fistful. To those of you who can't quite follow my reasoning around nothing/everything but are interested, I can recommend the anime Kara no Kyoukai with all the extra soykaf included. It's one of the most lain-friendly explanation you'll find online.

>>11825 The problem as posed seemed to me to be a real dilemma rather than a "ruse or IQ test," but it is possible that the entity would laugh at my lack of enlightenment. I fail to see how absolute freedom is the same thing as omnipotence, but I may have no room to complain, given that I have not seen Kara no Kyoukai as you suggested. In any case, your interpretation is rather interesting and not the sort of response I was expecting. I am glad to see that someone else understands the philosophically-elegant appeal of the "obliteration" option, even if our underlying philosophies are not identical. For me, I suppose I see this as a choice between elegance and potential, with both concepts being rather vaguely defined.

Thanks to being schizo I've been here before. I do nothing. I would wait without choosing until another option becomes available, however long that might be. If I could kill said powerful entity, I would.

>>11837 Are you indecisive, or are you strongly attached to your current mode of existence? How would you say this neutrality affects your perception of life? Also, please elaborate on having "been here before."

I choose obliteration. Transcendence is basically eternal life and eternal life, as a concept, is just wrong. Everything dies. Everything breaks apart. Stars die. Black holes evaporate. In the end all that's left is a dark, cold void. And that's OK, that's how it should be.

I dont really see how to reason about this. I guess i would chose transendence simply because of curiosoty, oblivion is an obvious thing, but transendence i would learn something new. >>11837 Can relate to that, i would probably just wait it out too if that were an option. Dunno why i would want to kill said entity however, unless i know its an asshole.

I choose obliteration. My "self" is not my body, or even necessarily my life/existence as there's no hard border between anything physical about me and the rest of the physical world. What would die, (I think-and that should probably be more of a consideration with this problem. How much are you risking by assuming you understand?) would be the filters/consciousness/desires that keeps me from raw existence and understanding. Becoming "poor in spirit" so you can be full of God/nirvana/what have you. If you define the self like I did, than my self becoming greater seems like it would mean falling farther into my own existence-delusions, even if it means becoming a more consciously "enlightened" person. This may be a lack of imagination on my part.

Great qestion OP. I would choose transcendence not because I seek more power but because not existing really freaks me out (more then death and I am not a religious person). Obliteration would take away the only thing that is really mine, my memories. Also, always keep on fighting, no matter what. If you would change transcendence with eternal punishment I think I would still prefer that over not existing. To all who picked obliteration I have a question. What is keeping you alive in this world? Is it the attitude that you are given time in this world and use what you have but your not in the hurry to get on the other side or is it something else?

>>11868 >To all who picked obliteration I have a question. What is keeping you alive in this world? I enjoy life.

>>11872 Doesn't that contradicts with your choice to push the button 'obliteration'? I mean you could still exist (in a different form) and maybe enjoy "the new life" if you would push the second button.

>>11868 > To all who picked obliteration I have a question. What is keeping you alive in this world? Self-preservation instinct ?

>>11876 Then why self-preservation instinct won't stop you from pushing the button that will make you stop exisitng? Do you see some difference between not existing and dying that I am not aware of (in a sense that dying is worse)? I'm asking because I would really like to understend the motive behind picking oblivion and not trying to convince anyone that should pick differently.

>>11879 > Then why self-preservation instinct won't stop you from pushing the button that will make you stop exisitng? It probably would, but this is only a hypothetical philosophical question, so it's irrelevant.

>>11868 It's possible to destroy your self without dying, I think. I also don't think the self is really real (I'm pretty religious) so it would leave a useful body/life for God to move through. And what's better than that? Self-annihilation is really my goal in life.

>>11884 That said, if I knew for certain that my death would have similar results and was cosmically desirable, I hope I would be able to work up the nerve to end it.

>>11825 Ok, now I've seen most of Kara no Kyoukai (through the epilogue, excluding Gate of Seventh Heaven) and can hopefully respond to you while being appropriately informed. Honestly, I found the philosophizing in the series vague, so I'm inclined to think that you were just projecting your own ideas onto the characters to begin with. I suppose you can say that, in Kara no Kyoukai, nothingness is associated with limitless potential, but this seems to be related to the particular metaphysics of the Root and would not necessarily carry over into the real world. If it's actually necessary to watch the rest of the materials in order to understand, please tell me, but it seems that the concept you're referring to has already been covered.

>>11837 This, kill them or fight to the death if need be. fuarrrk them for thinking they can control my destiny.

transcendence, obviously. What kind of a stupid question is that?

>>14198 It's a supremely powerful being. Mortal, I don't see how you could even put up enough of a fight to fight to the death, much less kill it. Do you know what it means to be completely and utterly outclassed? I suppose it's fair if you don't, given that a human of average competence/power or better rarely, if ever, obviously experiences such a thing. >>14202 The varied responses in this thread so far show that it isn't such a simple question as you seem to think. Those who choose "transcendence" do seem to have trouble understanding the viewpoints that lead to choosing "obliteration," though.

>>14218 this post and entire thread seems like it was written by a 17 year old. Is this what you do when you're bored in class?

>>14221 >Is this what you do when you're bored in class? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. That's beside the point. I don't believe that 17 year olds are incapable of contributing quality content. What is your precise problem with these posts, phrased in a way that doesn't single out any particular class of person based on incidental traits?

>>14222 >What is your precise problem with these posts, I'm not the person you're responding to but a problem I see is that everyone responding to this thread is projecting their own definition of "transcendence" and "obliteration" yet the OP is written as if those definitions were obvious and objective. This kind of underdeveloped empathy could indicate that the writer is underage. Although it's also possible that the writer has just finished reading a book or come from a circlejrek on some other platform and didn't realize how much context was missing in the OP.

>>14224 I wrote the OP and didn't intend for the definitions to be particularly obvious at all, in strict terms. I wanted to hear varied thoughts on the meaning and value of these vague concepts, and in that regard, I think things are going well. It's like a somewhat more structured Rorschach test. I don't think that the two concepts are quite so formless as inkblots, but there's enough flexibility to keep things interesting.

>>14225 >flexibility >if someone gives you an answer you dislike, you go off on some weird tangent about how humans would fight a losing battle against the strange entity you came up with ok. Do you graduate high school this year at least?

>>14226 Admittedly, that bit may have been mildly off-topic, but I wanted to respond to the absurdity of choosing "fight" under these conditions. Even if you were only locked in a cell facing a pane of thick plexiglass with a vulnerable human on the other side, "fight" would not be an option (although the more generic "struggle" might be, but it would be like pointless flailing more than anything), and it's even less of an option under these circumstances. Besides, I already specified that "neither" was not an option. I think you've misunderstood me. Then again, maybe I'm mentally deficient as you are apparently suggesting. That's always possible.

>>14225 >I wrote the OP and didn't intend for the definitions to be particularly obvious at all So pick your own dilemma and pick your own solution? That doesn't leave much room for meaningful discussion if everyone is starting from their own unique set of premises. >I think things are going well The thread just looks like an excuse for people to write look-how-smart-i-am public masturbation posts.

>>14257 >So pick your own dilemma and pick your own solution? It's not that simple. There's a point in-between a dilemma that is perfectly defined and a dilemma that is completely undefined. >The thread just looks like an excuse for people to write look-how-smart-i-am public masturbation posts. Well, I don't think it looks like an excuse for people to write look-how-smart-i-am public masturbation posts. You think so. I don't think so. Here we are. Do you want me to delete the thread?

I'd press the obliteration button in a blink of an eye. Idk what transcendence would feel like, but there can't be a more complete and rewarding gift than obliteration. i can't beleive any existence outside of the phisycal body anymore. deep down everybody feels the same, they just lie to themselfes so maybe this so called "life" gets a little bit more bearable.

I can lose all my money, or win something that might or might not be money, but is a guaranteed win, and will be guaranteed good for me in essence (being greater makes irrelevant if I am made better or not, and the connection between me and whatever I become negates the silly analogy that comes next of the seed and the tree). Among the cute attempts of insight by being contrarian, we have "we won't have any money anyway", "why bother if I won't have all the money" or just ignoring the guarantees given in this admittedly poor scenario. Creativity can be achieved by the part that says obliteration erases you from every possible timeline, if we make up a guy who has some disturbing feels about his other selves for some reason and seizes the chance over "trascendence" not guaranteeing those feels to dissappear.

>>14262 >deep down everybody feels the same I don't know about "deep down" because sentiments seem to exist largely on the surface level to me, but I used to feel this way when I was more depressed (that is, that I was miserable and everyone else was secretly miserable) but now that I'm less depressed I don't agree. Whether I'm lying to myself or not, I truly feel different from how I used to. Life suddenly isn't a chore that I have to justify as much as an experience for me to potentially enjoy. If I end up "transcending" one day, well, that could be interesting, too. >>14264 Maybe this is contrarian, but I don't see what it has to do with money at all.

what am i supposed to do here?

>>14347 I'm not sure I understand the question. What's holding you back?

Trick question, both buttons do the same thing.

It doesn't sound like a complicated situation, at least for me, I pick transcendence. I perceive reality because I exist, and not existing sounds incredibly boring. Also as time moves on we keep on changing, to the point where we could become unrecognizable to ourselves in the past, so this is just taking that same road but speeding it up.

>>11820 transcendence, I'm getting out of this simulation to metaphysically malform the creator's face

From a personal perspective. The first choice is, in essence, death. Sure you can get anal about the term since obliterating yourself from spacetime would mean you were retroactively never alive in the first place. But from your own continuity up until that point, it's just a self-censoring death. Maybe at the last second you think about how everything you have done has been completely erased with not even causality having proof that you once were a cog in the machine. It's pretty simple. The second choice is not; it's really nebulous. Just saying it's something we can't understand, only vaguely imagine, makes it sound like it could be potentially anything, but not necessarily everything. The idea that it may not makes us "better" just seems like a way to give the choice ambiguity so that it may not become too attractive. Honestly the second choice is so vague that it doesn't seem to even relate to the first choice in an either-or scenario. If transcedence gives me enough power or understanding, I could just erase myself if I saw reason for it. Or simply just commit suicide. It feels less like a choice between black and white and more like black and a blurry mess of muddy colors. Which I guess is the point of the "experiment". Everyone gets to project their own ideas of "transcendence" unto some vague option. Second choice.

smash that mf obliterate button

Shit on my hand, throw soykaf at entity, steal copper wiring from buttons, run.

>>11855 Wrong?Shut up.