this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
28 points (96.7% liked)

chapotraphouse

13632 readers
739 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
Nakoichi@hexbear.net
corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
sweet_pecan@hexbear.net
a_little_red_rat@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
PaX@hexbear.net
28
Would you rather go to heaven for Graham's number of years followed by an infinity in hell, or just not have an afterlife? (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 week ago by cosecantphi@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Assume you never get tired of the pleasure in heaven, and you never get used to the torture in hell.

Lmao this is such a stupid scenario, but I love putting incomprehensibly large numbers in absurd contexts like this. Like yeah, no brainer that infinity is vastly incomprehsibly largererer than Graham's number, of course nothing is worth going to hell that long for.

But uh, Graham's numbers is a lot of years. For all intents and purposes it's just never coming compared to the characteristic time scale of human thought.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KnilAdlez@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

TREE(n) years in heaven, where n is a number of your choosing, but TREE(n+1) years in hell.