If God put you in charge of...

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why not like have some random other girl you enjoy on a intellectual/emotional level in a uberhot form?

Or non-random guy in the form of uberhot girl for that matter.

 

[Perfection]

A giant look-up table. At a reasonable level of fine-grained description, corresponding to the differences people can and can't perceive in each others' speech and actions, there are only finitely many things a person can do in a seventy year lifespan. God could make a simple program that used a look-up table to select the speech and action of a pseudo-person in any environment.

How would God make the look up table?

Also, there's no reason the "psuedo-person" being hypothetically tortured couldn't be forced to live forever to endure eternal suffering.

 

[Darkwind]

Everyone will share only one soul, it will travel through time and space and reincarnate as another person. So you can only hurt yourself when you hurt others.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The line of what qualifies as a person can be made fuzzy. Yet you say it is the basis of the one rule of the afterlife: that you cannot involuntarily hold people.

In practice, a borderline-person soon bootstraps their intelligence and rationality to become a full-fledged person. But that's just the real world, and we're talking about possible worlds. So, let's say: if you involuntarily hold a borderline-person, then there's a probability that you'll magically find yourself involuntarily held in someone else's universe. The probability corresponds to their degree of personhood. Poetic justice

How would God make the look up table?

How to create Look Up Tables - although presumably God would be a more elegant programmer than Microsoft

OK, I'm not answering the intended question. But, you'd have to refine the question,
cause I don't see the problem.

Also, there's no reason the "psuedo-person" being hypothetically tortured couldn't be forced to live forever to endure eternal suffering.

But after a few thousand years, they'd forget everything from very long ago. At that point they could be put through an endless repeating loop of experiences and never notice.

 

[Perfection]

How to create Look Up Tables - although presumably God would be a more elegant programmer than Microsoft

OK, I'm not answering the intended question. But, you'd have to refine the question,
cause I don't see the problem.

Well, the question rests in where does this data for the LUT come from? I should think it would come from some simulation or something, which would mean in said simulation the suffering would occur.

One might assert that God has some sort of privileged omniscience allowing him to know this without him thinking about it, but I think there are some weird problems associated with that, most notably would be how can we be sure that our universe isn't some sort of God LUT?

But after a few thousand years, they'd forget everything from very long ago. At that point they could be put through an endless repeating loop of experiences and never notice.

Of course, along with infinite lifespan, infinite memory can also be installed.

 

[Ayatollah So]

You could, you could also have it all be in their "mind". Or you could 'fix' people so that they don't want to torture others in the first place anyway.

Well, the question rests in where does this data for the LUT come from? I should think it would come from some simulation or something, which would mean in said simulation the suffering would occur.

I quoted PrinceScamp above to remind you how this subtopic got started. Namely, there are some people who would want to create an afterlife where others are tortured.

Why this matters to our recent conversation: this is where the data for the LUT comes from. Namely, from the wannabe-torturer's desires for "realistic" behavior of the "tortured".

Of course, along with infinite lifespan, infinite memory can also be installed.

But if God is going to provide faux people to satisfy a would-be torturer, She needn't increase the torturer's memory to infinity. So She needn't increase the "victim"s memory infinitely either, since the torturer won't notice.

 

[Perfection]

I quoted PrinceScamp above to remind you how this subtopic got started. Namely, there are some people who would want to create an afterlife where others are tortured.

Why this matters to our recent conversation: this is where the data for the LUT comes from. Namely, from the wannabe-torturer's desires for "realistic" behavior of the "tortured".

I don't think that really works. Say, I desire honest feedback and criticism of my post. That desire doesn't translate into the actual honest feedback and criticism I seek. One might be able to trick me using a relatively simple approach to my desires (eg. by saying "Perf you're brilliant, I love everything you say", even though you don't actually feel that way), but then I am not really getting the experience I desire. I am just getting tricked into believing that the experience I am getting is that which I desire. That's a distinctly different thing.

But if God is going to provide faux people to satisfy a would-be torturer, She needn't increase the torturer's memory to infinity. So She needn't increase the "victim"s memory infinitely either, since the torturer won't notice.

Of course such memory restriction here is quite a hamper on one's afterlife, confining one to a finite time of experience. If we go even further back I should note that my question was about granting people basically whatever they wanted, not granting them the experience of infinite memory surely qualifies as a violation!

Also, although there are only a finite number of states, one could design to sequence them in a specified infinite non-repeating order, which would require an infinite lookup table to produce, so our torturer would not get his tortures in the sequence which he desires. That would be a different experience, albeit one he couldn't see.

 

[Millman]

If I were to argue life had a positive and negative effect you could switch all the positives and minuses on the other side like in math. Language too. What about indifference. Is there something on the other side that's equally indifferent? An oxymoron or a moron of oxygen?

 

[Souron]

In practice, a borderline-person soon bootstraps their intelligence and rationality to become a full-fledged person. But that's just the real world, and we're talking about possible worlds. So, let's say: if you involuntarily hold a borderline-person, then there's a probability that you'll magically find yourself involuntarily held in someone else's universe. The probability corresponds to their degree of personhood. Poetic justice

So if you make a full person, then you can't hold them, if you create a non-person then nothing happens, but if you create a half person you could find yourself bound? On top of that you could still coerce a person to stay in your universe without repercussion.

That makes the question of what qualifies as a borderline person who wants to escape the world you created even bigger than the question of what qualifies as a person. And one that I would given the chance spend a lot of time trying to find. That knowledge could be well worth the cost being involuntarily held. When the universe has so few natural laws, the worth of knowing them increases. In the world you describe, knowing that would amount to a grand unified theory.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I don't think that really works. Say, I desire honest feedback and criticism of my post. That desire doesn't translate into the actual honest feedback and criticism I seek. One might be able to trick me using a relatively simple approach to my desires (eg. by saying "Perf you're brilliant, I love everything you say", even though you don't actually feel that way), but then I am not really getting the experience I desire. [...]

[...] If we go even further back I should note that my question was about granting people basically whatever they wanted, not granting them the experience of infinite memory surely qualifies as a violation!

Perf, you're brilliant! I love everything you say!

If the allegation is that I'm not giving people whatever afterlife they wanted, then I'm guilty as charged. But if that was the issue, you should have lodged this complaint against Prince Scamp and amadeus on page 1. "Would they really be people?" amadeus asked - well, if not, then the haters aren't getting what they wished for.

So if you make a full person, then you can't hold them, if you create a non-person then nothing happens, but if you create a half person you could find yourself bound?

You're leaving out the crucial bit: if you try to hold them there you could find yourself bound. If you don't, God makes sure they develop into a full person and then they get their own God Jr. universe (or they can voluntarily stay in yours, if they wish).

On top of that you could still coerce a person to stay in your universe without repercussion.

No. Where do you get that?

The rest of your post depends on these misreadings of my view, so I'll skip it.

 

[Mango Elephant]

You made a stronger claim. No only does no one deserves hell, no one deserves anything. No one is accountable for their actions.

I agree. I like mercy, however, so I would rather give everyone reward where none is deserved than give some people punishment where I do not believe it is their fault for what they did.

By the same token, logically no one can deserve any kind of praise either. It's impossible to be someone to look up to. Gandhi is no more of an inspiring figure than Hitler (sorry Godwin). Surely this seems incorrect?

Now, I never did say that. I said events are set in stone and can't be changed, and that events among other things in people's life makes them evil, and they can't be blamed for that. Does this mean that we should have a neutral opinion on evil things? Of course not. Now, why do we look up to people like MLK and Gandhi? Their thoughts, their ideas, their boldness in the face of adversary, and their character. Just because I am of the opinion that these things had to happen, and if history happened again that these things would happen again does not make them less in value. I don't think these people deserve more in heaven or more happiness than anyone else because they had lucky (or, unlucky, lol) circumstances that led to their successes and martyrdom, but we can look up to them on this Earth because of their thoughts, their ideas, their boldness in the face of adversary, and their character, not because of their destiny.

 

[Souron]

You're leaving out the crucial bit: if you try to hold them there you could find yourself bound. If you don't, God makes sure they develop into a full person and then they get their own God Jr. universe (or they can voluntarily stay in yours, if they wish).

Yes I understand that extra requirement of trying to hold them, but I don't seek how that complicates things. I'd expect the desire for the universe not to have it's inanimate content disappear out of it to be default. Same with half people.

Also the idea that half humans would be guaranteed to develop into a full human is strange. If I were to imagine a slightly more enlightened elephant (which is a pretty smart animal sharing many human traits), you're saying that the elephant might make a leap into being fully human? That there is an imposed natural law on the imagined worlds created that half humans cannot exists for long?

No. Where do you get that?

How can't you? you can still promise a carrot. And you can still spread rumor through the multi-verse of Heaven. There is still a social environment, in which people can be manipulated. It is still possible to be the cool kid, and to want to be part of the club. There is still reputation. As I see it there is plenty of room for coercion.

I don't think these people deserve more in heaven or more happiness than anyone else because they had lucky (or, unlucky, lol) circumstances that led to their successes and martyrdom, but we can look up to them on this Earth because of their thoughts, their ideas, their boldness in the face of adversary, and their character, not because of their destiny.

So we can look at good people as examples for others, but it is not right to give out rewards and punishments?

 

[Perfection]

If the allegation is that I'm not giving people whatever afterlife they wanted, then I'm guilty as charged. But if that was the issue, you should have lodged this complaint against Prince Scamp and amadeus on page 1. "Would they really be people?" amadeus asked - well, if not, then the haters aren't getting what they wished for.

My complaint is not just that they don't get whatever they desire, but that they don't get whatever experience they desire, either.

 

[Millman]

There might be a better argument here.

 

[GamezRule]

If I was in control of that, all people who died would get a free cookie and then get their dream life.

 

[sophie]

If I was in control of that, all people who died would get a free cookie and then get their dream life.

What if their dream life was to never have to eat another cookie after they died?

 

[GamezRule]

Then they go to hell.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I'd expect the desire for the universe not to have it's inanimate content disappear out of it to be default. Same with half people.

You'd expect, naturally enough, but you'd be wrong in the second case.

[...] might make a leap into being fully human? That there is an imposed natural law on the imagined worlds created that half humans cannot exists for long?

Exactly. The biggest draw of dreaming up Heaven is that you get to make the rules of its game different from those on Earth.

you can still promise a carrot. And you can still spread rumor through the multi-verse of Heaven. There is still a social environment, in which people can be manipulated. It is still possible to be the cool kid, and to want to be part of the club. There is still reputation. As I see it there is plenty of room for coercion.

An offer is not coercive. (I mean a real offer, not a mafia-style "offer you can't refuse".) If the Kool Kats (tm) offer to let you join their club and play in their universes provided that you design yours with features F, G, and H, I don't see how you can complain. You can always try different clubs or start your own. I imagine that which club would be cool would depend entirely on whom you ask. If you abhor features F, G, and H, you probably won't think much of the Kool Kats anyway.

My complaint is not just that they don't get whatever they desire, but that they don't get whatever experience they desire, either.

Well, there's a distinction without much significance. But, whatever rocks your boat.

 

[uat2d]

If God put you in charge of creating all the afterlives and determining who goes into what afterlife, how would you do it?

Edit: No appeals to what God already is doing, God takes all his cues from you!

If for some reason there was a God and he chose me, out of everybody and everything, to choose the afterlives of every living being, I'd give him, God himself, an afterlife that would be a replay on repeat of every single life there ever was and will ever be, so he could experience an infinite afterlife of the crap he did.

As for the rest of his creations that didn't choose to be born, then I guess no afterlife at all would be the proper choice. You know, like in there's only one life on this Earth and once that's done, instead of being "welcome to hell" it would be "hell's over".

 

[Perfection]

Well, there's a distinction without much significance. But, whatever rocks your boat.

I was arguing against the distinction being significant not for.