SimWorld without suffering

[Meow Mix]

This is a tie-in to my earlier thread "God the Programmer," where I made the argument that if we can program it, God can do it. This is in response to people who say that the reason suffering exists is because of some inexplicable good that comes from it or that God was somehow forced to create suffering in order to make a world.

If we can program a world that doesn't have physical suffering or innocent victims then why couldn't God have made reality that way?

Consider a hypothetical program designed to demonstrate this, a "SimWorld."

Normally in the course of programming a video game, programmers will program the basic "universal rules" which govern how objects behave, which usually consist of rules like "objects at rest stay at rest until acted on by a force" and things like that. But what happens in a game that isn't finished being developed yet?

For instance, in an unfinished version of Grand Theft Auto where collision detection hasn't been worked out yet between cars and pedestrians, if you tried to hit a pedestrian you would actually pass right through them -- the pedestrians would be completely unscathed and so would the driver without violating any of the world's game rules up to that point. The same is true for swinging a sword at someone such as in Mount & Blade, in order to cut someone the game has to have collision detection specifically programmed to recognize when a sword strikes a person. It doesn't violate any game rules for the sword to pass right through a person if this collision detection isn't programmed in yet.

Clearly, collision detection rules are a significant source of suffering in God's program (the world). So it's an important thing to keep in mind if we're making a hypothetical world that's completely consistent but that doesn't contain physical suffering or innocent victims.

Next important topic is inertia. There's a game called Big Rigs that's a notoriously bad game because of several programming flaws (for a racing game): one of which involves the fact that if you put your truck in reverse, you can accelerate infinitely and if you release the button you just stop instantly to a dead stop no matter how fast you were accelerating. Why would this happen? Because the game "designers" (I refuse to call them that ) forgot to deliberately program inertia into this action (inertia works if you move forward, which is important to realize that the rules can be different for different circumstances in a program).

Inertia is a source of suffering: the reason a baseball bat hurts is because of its inertia. If you conditionally remove the inertia of something that's going to strike someone, then it will just come to a dead stop without imparting any force (and therefore pain) into the person.

It's really quite easy to program a world without suffering. One method is removing collision detection between anything that could hurt a person and that person, another is taking away inertia of anything that could hurt a person when it strikes them. Likewise it's easy to see how a virus could be stopped by just adding more lines of code to prevent people from getting sick.

I don't buy into this argument that God "had" to create suffering for some inexplicable reason. It's entirely possible to completely cognitively construct a fully functional world in which suffering never enters the picture and in which citizens would still have free will and happiness.

The Problem of Evil takes it away from there.

 

[Meow Mix]

To summarize:

- Rules can apply to different circumstances in a program. A truck can have inertia in all circumstances unless it collides with a person, at which point the truck can come to a full stop without throwing the driver out the window since there's no inertia under that circumstance. Same goes for swinging a baseball bat: baseball would be completely possible, but if you swing a bat at someone's face it would come to a dead stop without exerting force on the person. The game world would still be 100% consistent with these additional rules. It's possible to do, so why hasn't God done it?

- Innocent victims are the result of collision detection and inertia that God programmed into the world. It's entirely possible for God to remove either of these things to make it so that an innocent person couldn't be raped or stabbed or shot by simply, say, removing inertia or collision detection from the bullet by adding an extra script to the code that says something like "If the bullet makes contact with a human, set inertia to 0" or something like that. Still completely possible.

- Doing these things that I'm talking about do not remove free will. Everyone in such a world would still be completely free of will, assuming free will exists. What's the argument then?

Why the hell hasn't God done this unless He is a malevolent/negligent creator?

 

[Gloone]

Before I reply to OP I want to share with you a bug that I thought was really cool.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"During Oblivion, our new Radiant AI system - which would let all the NPC's in the world think and act on their own - led to some of the best bugs. My favorite was a quest where you had to talk to a prisoner in jail. Sometimes, when play testing, we would find him locked in his cell, dead. It took us forever to figure out why. Turns out, the guards in the jail could run out of food and get hungry. They would then go down and kill the prisoner to take his food. This all happened when the player wasn't there. I still don't remember how we figured it out. But the solution was easy: more guard food."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-- Todd Howard, game director, Bethesda Softworks[/FONT]

Okay.. now.. I am not trying to make excuses, but if god is the programmer then there are a number of reasons a program could have ended up being somewhat faulty.

- We and this universe is some type of prototype
- Maybe it got a bug, like the Oblivion game and now people have minds of their own when they were not suppose to because everything was suppose to be artificial.
- It could be a glitch.
- It could have been a bug that was never fixed
- It could be that the program got a virus
- Program could have been designed to only allow every living thing X amount of time
- God feel asleep and forgot to finish the program (According to genesis in the bible god rest on the 7th day. Does that mean god died or just fell asleep and forgot to wake back up. Maybe a day of rest for god is billions of years to us idk.
- Maybe god had some other business to attend and forgot to finish the program, now it is just collecting dust, because someone else came up with a better version of the prototype.
- Maybe god is so realistic that his game came to life and god enjoys playing with real life action figures.
- Maybe god is amazed by its own creation and now god wishes he didn't create it
- God enjoys interactive programs.

I will stop the list there.

Now to answer your questions seriously. I would say I have no real idea. I have no idea why I am here, I just know I am. Maybe god created everything and said it is our responsibility to make sure the program runs the way it was intended. Kind of like saying, “you said you wanted a chance and now here is your chance.. so take it!”

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Oh dear Meow Mix...
What a nice idea you have.

What you are essentially asking God to do is create a world more perfect. The onus is now on you to define what is perfect, or more like perfect.
You offer a few examples in this thread, that inertia might be suspended at times it would cause suffering. So essentially your saying suffering is at odds with perfection, right? Though, would you agree well within intrinsic laws or God's ability to do.

You then complain that God should/could have done it differently, which I will deduce that to also mean, he could have done it better.
The onus is on you again to explain what better means. What is it that you are appealing to, what standard are you trying to hold God too?

Can God create anything that is perfect? If not you run into a real problem when you start presuming that God can do this or that, but even God is bound by intrinsic laws, which are part of perfection.

The moment God creates something, it will be in a position to be less then perfect. Now, your complaint may be that God let things go way to far, which you are entitled to say. What you can't say is that God may break intrinsic laws.

The difference in your video game and what God is doing, is you don't really know the end result or intended purpose of God, which reduces your comparison via video game to apples and oranges...

 

[Engyo]

I'll have to look it up now, but this reminds me of a short story.

The gist of it was that God was working on his Creation, changing things, making little tweaks here and there, interacting with it. Then His parents stuck their heads in the doorway and told Him it was time to put His toys away and do His homework before bedtime.

 

[Zadok]

To summarize:

.....

Why the hell hasn't God done this unless He is a malevolent/negligent creator?

It depends on what G-d is programming as the purpose of the game. You are assuming the greatest purpose is to avoid suffering. Since this life is short (life span just in relationship to the age of the universe) perhaps there is something of value that may have an impact on what people do - like driving around pedestrians - when suffering is a very real possibility.

Perhaps the only way to learn not to do things that cause suffering is to experience what happens when you are the cause of other’s (and also yourself) suffering.

The one possibility you may not have considered is that the game programmed by G-d by design ends in every individual suffering death. I find this most interesting because in previous threads you have said you are willing to suffer death for your girlfriend. Is that an expression or is that real? In essence we have the privilege in this life of demonstrating in real time what we are willing to suffer for – not as a pretending or a lie but a game designed specifically to demonstrate what we will suffer and die for.

Perhaps this is a very cleaver game where G-d has designed the object to be learned and demonstrated to be love.

Zadok

 

[Meow Mix]

It depends on what G-d is programming as the purpose of the game. You are assuming the greatest purpose is to avoid suffering. Since this life is short (life span just in relationship to the age of the universe) perhaps there is something of value that may have an impact on what people do - like driving around pedestrians - when suffering is a very real possibility.

Perhaps the only way to learn not to do things that cause suffering is to experience what happens when you are the cause of other’s (and also yourself) suffering.

The one possibility you may not have considered is that the game programmed by G-d by design ends in every individual suffering death. I find this most interesting because in previous threads you have said you are willing to suffer death for your girlfriend. Is that an expression or is that real? In essence we have the privilege in this life of demonstrating in real time what we are willing to suffer for – not as a pretending or a lie but a game designed specifically to demonstrate what we will suffer and die for.

Perhaps this is a very cleaver game where G-d has designed the object to be learned and demonstrated to be love.

Zadok

There's nothing clever about leukemia, melanoma, breast cancer, tornadoes, testicular cancer, frostbite, lymes disease, malaria, toxoplsmosis, trichinosis, mental retardation, schizophrenia, alzheimer's, toxic shock syndrome, volcanoes, thyroid disease, dismemberment, paralysis, tetanus, cholera, influenza, diabetes, earthquakes, tsunamis, ovarian cysts, cystic fibrosis, parkinson's disease, SARS, blindness, deafness, muteness, hemophilia, hurricanes, bronchitis, bulimia, anorexia, bunions, cold sores, impotence, ingrown nails, sudden infant death syndrome, menstrual cramps, melanoma, human papilloma virus, syphillis, mumps, malasia, myopia, scabies, scars, sleepwalking, allergies, osteoperosis, ear infections, nausea, obesity, meteor impacts, famine...

One could literally go on for pages... pages and pages and pages.

Now.. how much of that is really necessary for God's "game" even in this short life span when it's possible to have NONE of it and still have free will and complete happiness?

Have to say for myself, it's hard to fathom the scope of it but when a list is made like that... and with the realization that such a list is woefully inadequate to really even BEGIN to describe the suffering God allows in this world...

It really begins to look like God is an ***hole without explanation.

 

[Atomist]

MM, I think your missing the point... I think the argument is WHY should a place without suffering be a better/more perfect than currently because there is no objective definition of better or more perfect.

I think that might be the fatal flaw of your argument since all one has to do is say... meh... I don't accept your definition of perfect or better.

I mean after all there are infinite variables that one can't account for so the theist can just cop-out (like they usually do) and say god has perfect knowledge so you can't judge his actions.

 

[Meow Mix]

MM, I think your missing the point... I think the argument is WHY should a place without suffering be a better/more perfect than currently because there is no objective definition of better or more perfect.

I think that might be the fatal flaw of your argument since all one has to do is say... meh... I don't accept your definition of perfect or better.

I mean after all there are infinite variables that one can't account for so the theist can just cop-out (like they usually do) and say god has perfect knowledge so you can't judge his actions.

Luckily we tend to agree on what we mean by "benevolence" and "malevolence."

A being which knowingly causes or allows suffering is not benevolent.

That's all that my point is; I'm not arguing for which world is more perfect or not.

Just saying that those who believe God is "good" have a real dilemma on their hands. They can't claim God is benevolent if He is negligent.

So we're stuck with either believing in a malevolent god (who'd want to worship a demon?), an impotent god (who'd worship that either?), or an ignorant god (again, who'd want to worship that?) if a god exists.

Nobody -- until the Problem of Evil, or more aptly the Problem of Suffering is solved -- can claim to believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deity exists without blatantly contradicting themselves.

THAT is the point. I'm not missing any points, but perhaps some people are missing that most important point...

 

[Atomist]

Luckily we tend to agree on what we mean by "benevolence" and "malevolence."

A being which knowingly causes or allows suffering is not benevolent.

That's all that my point is; I'm not arguing for which world is more perfect or not.

Just saying that those who believe God is "good" have a real dilemma on their hands. They can't claim God is benevolent if He is negligent.

So we're stuck with either believing in a malevolent god (who'd want to worship a demon?), an impotent god (who'd worship that either?), or an ignorant god (again, who'd want to worship that?) if a god exists.

Nobody -- until the Problem of Evil, or more aptly the Problem of Suffering is solved -- can claim to believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deity exists without blatantly contradicting themselves.

THAT is the point. I'm not missing any points, but perhaps some people are missing that most important point...

Well no... the problem with that line of reasoning is that they can just assert that god has more information than you so anything that LOOKS malevolent is actually for the greater good. That's the pitfall of your argument... and "the problem of evil/suffering argument"

I don't really like the problem of evil argument for that reason, it's too easy to assert your way out of it.

I mean the argument only really works after arguing that there is no way we can be certain that god is a benevolent god as opposed to a malevolent trickster god who's out to get everyone for the lulz and therefore one is in a position to say that god is out for the greater good and therefore we can't assume that he is. But then again... that argument seems to be persuasive enough without the bringing up the problem of evil/suffering.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well no... the problem with that line of reasoning is that they can just assert that god has more information than you so anything that LOOKS malevolent is actually for the greater good. That's the pitfall of your argument... and "the problem of evil/suffering argument"

What, you're accepting fallacies as valid responses now?

That'd be called special pleading son. No one can pull that off and still be rational. "Somehow, this being makes X into Y in an unknowable way" is the epitome of special pleading fallacy. If they say that, then you just point out to them that they're being fallacious and kindly ask them to start again. See?

I don't really like the problem of evil argument for that reason, it's too easy to assert your way out of it.

Oh it's ALWAYS easy to fallacy your way out of anything.

I'm not in the habit of accepting fallacies as acceptable answers though. You shouldn't be either

At least not without first arguing that there is no way we can be certain that god is a benevolent god as opposed to a malevolent trickster god who's out to get everyone for the lulz and therefore one is in a position to say that god is out for the greater good and therefore we can't assume that he is. But then again... that argument seems to be persuasive enough without the bringing up the problem of evil/suffering.

Hence the whole programming argument. The "it's not cognitive to suppose it's possible for there to be no suffering" is a LEGITIMATE response, but it fades away with the programming argument.

The other arguments are just special pleading fallacies.

Theists can come up with special pleading all they want, and dress it up any way they want, but it's just putting lipstick on a pig. A fallacy is a fallacy, and it's not a response to the legitimately rational question of the Problem of Evil.

If they're satisfied with fallacies to answer it, then they're irrational. I'm not satisfied with irrationality. That's the end of the story until they provide a rational response. Otherwise we might as well be talking about smurf ice cream cones as evidence for the sky really being purple. It's just goofy to deal in fallacies. I genuinely hope that the only reason the special pleading nonsense is brought up is because they don't know it's fallacious.

 

[Atomist]

What, you're accepting fallacies as valid responses now?

That'd be called special pleading son. No one can pull that off and still be rational. "Somehow, this being makes X into Y in an unknowable way" is the epitome of special pleading fallacy. If they say that, then you just point out to them that they're being fallacious and kindly ask them to start again. See?

really now... whats your goal? to persuade theist and have logically valid arguments or just have logically valid arguments that aren't persuasive?

Oh it's ALWAYS easy to fallacy your way out of anything.

I'm not in the habit of accepting fallacies as acceptable answers though. You shouldn't be either

Hence the whole programming argument. The "it's not cognitive to suppose it's possible for there to be no suffering" is a LEGITIMATE response, but it fades away with the programming argument.

The other arguments are just special pleading fallacies.

Theists can come up with special pleading all they want, and dress it up any way they want, but it's just putting lipstick on a pig. A fallacy is a fallacy, and it's not a response to the legitimately rational question of the Problem of Evil.

If they're satisfied with fallacies to answer it, then they're irrational. I'm not satisfied with irrationality. That's the end of the story until they provide a rational response. Otherwise we might as well be talking about smurf ice cream cones as evidence for the sky really being purple. It's just goofy to deal in fallacies. I genuinely hope that the only reason the special pleading nonsense is brought up is because they don't know it's fallacious.

I never said I accepted it as an answer... I'm saying that it's better to address that point first and it's more persuasive to do so.

 

[Gloone]

Now.. how much of that is really necessary for God's "game" even in this short life span when it's possible to have NONE of it and still have free will and complete happiness?

Well Meow at least you are bright enough to acknowledge that it is a real problem. I don’t understand why you would blame god for it though. I mean are you trying to say people are not responsible for their actions and everything is gods fault for allowing it to happen?

 

[Meow Mix]

really now... whats your goal? to persuade theist and have logically valid arguments or just have logically valid arguments that aren't persuasive?

Any logically valid argument is persuasive. I can't force anyone to be rational, but some people with irrational beliefs do value reason. Those are the ones that will be able to make an important decision based on logical arguments. I changed my belief from theism to a lack of theism (atheism) after teaching myself the basics of thought, how to recognize fallacies, and other such important pieces of information.

If an argument is logical and the only response someone has to it is a fallacy, and they cling to it even when it's pointed out that it's fallacious and they have no counterargument to it being fallacious, then you're wasting your time anyway. It's time to move on and talk about your favorite flavor of cheese.

You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into. You seem to be suggesting that we should tailor atheistic arguments in such a way that we can convince the gullible by stooping to a level devoid of reason, but I disagree. If someone thinks fallacies are acceptable then they're just sort of a lost cause until they realize otherwise, period.

I never said I accepted it as an answer... I'm saying that it's better to address that point first and it's more persuasive to do so.

There's no point to address; the "point" you're referring to is a fallacy.

Do I have to address square-circles to discuss geometry? Do I have to address married bachelors to speak of states of singleness or marriedness? Do I have to defend someone from argumentum ad hominems before discussing their valid points?

Fallacies should simply be pointed out as fallacies and then ignored. They aren't "points." They aren't valid. They're nothing, they're nothing short of the butchery of reason and shouldn't be encouraged or dignified with anything more than "Sorry, that's a fallacy."

EDIT: Okay, of course, anyone can fall prey to a fallacy so of course we should dignify fallacies with one MORE thing than just "Sorry, that's a fallacy." And that is: "Sorry, that's a fallacy, and this is why" to those who are unfamiliar with formal and informal fallacies.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well Meow at least you are bright enough to acknowledge that it is a real problem. I don’t understand why you would blame god for it though. I mean are you trying to say people are not responsible for their actions and everything is gods fault for allowing it to happen?

Nope, I fully endorse the idea that we're culpable for the decisions that we make when we're aware of the consequences -- but there's quite a bit of suffering that occurs regardless of human decision, including most of those I listed such as the various diseases, cancers, and natural disasters.

If God can create the world any way that's logically possible, and it's logically possible to create it in such a way that allows for far less suffering than this world does, then God is culpable in the same way that a negligent carpenter is negligent for building an inferior home (such as one without a roof to block rain) for instance. Except it's worse for God than it is for the carpenter in terms of how negligent He is or how malevolent He is (as a result of deliberate negligence): any negligence on the carpenter's fault may just be because he was ignorant, or didn't have the power to overcome a logically possible goal. Not so for God! God ostensibly knows all possible ways to tackle the problems and has the power to do any of those possible methods. Any negligence on God's part are by definition intentional, and intentional negligence is malevolent: just like failing to feed a baby when you remember the baby needs food (but you decide not to feed it anyway) is intentional negligence/malevolence. See?

 

[Atomist]

Any logically valid argument is persuasive. I can't force anyone to be rational, but some people with irrational beliefs do value reason. Those are the ones that will be able to make an important decision based on logical arguments. I changed my belief from theism to a lack of theism (atheism) after teaching myself the basics of thought, how to recognize fallacies, and other such important pieces of information.

If an argument is logical and the only response someone has to it is a fallacy, and they cling to it even when it's pointed out that it's fallacious and they have no counterargument to it being fallacious, then you're wasting your time anyway. It's time to move on and talk about your favorite flavor of cheese.

You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into. You seem to be suggesting that we should tailor atheistic arguments in such a way that we can convince the gullible by stooping to a level devoid of reason, but I disagree. If someone thinks fallacies are acceptable then they're just sort of a lost cause until they realize otherwise, period.

I feel like your totally missing my point. in an ideal world all logically valid arguments are persuasive... but then again we have people who are young earth creationist and many other completely illogical positions... Yet it doesn't behoove you to argue with Young Earth creationist on how carbon dating is accurate since your going to spend days teaching them that (which they won't accept anyways...) since it could be way more efficient to show them that we can tree ring date till up to 11,000 years... which means the earth is not 6000 years old. And since tree ring dating is so intuitive...

So...I'm saying that there are arguments that could be made that are way more persuasive than the problem of evil/suffering argument that are completely logical. I'm not a fan of the problem of evil/suffering... I'm just saying this because I think you've made a couple of threads based on the problem of evil when it would behoove you to use the "argument from non belief/divine hiddenness"

 

[Meow Mix]

I feel like your totally missing my point. in an ideal world all logically valid arguments are persuasive... but then again we have people who are young earth creationist and many other completely illogical positions... Yet it doesn't behoove you to argue with Young Earth creationist on how carbon dating is accurate since your going to spend days teaching them that (which they won't accept anyways...) since it could be way more efficient to show them that we can tree ring date till up to 11,000 years... which means the earth is not 6000 years old. And since tree ring dating is so intuitive...

So...I'm saying that there are arguments that could be made that are way more persuasive than the problem of evil/suffering argument that are completely logical. I'm not a fan of the problem of evil/suffering... I'm just saying this because I think you've made a couple of threads based on the problem of evil when it would behoove you to use the "argument from non belief/divine hiddenness"

I get what you're saying, I do. You're not going over my head or I'm not misinterpreting you.

I'm not just here to teach noobs how to think, you know. I'm here to learn myself, too. I want to know if my arguments have contradictions or invalidities.

If someone can only respond with fallacies then they're not really up to the level I'm looking for in someone who can point out to me that the argument fails. Therefore they're not worth my time.

I'm looking for a challenge; I'm looking for a reason that I'm wrong in the argument. It's like trying to falsify in science. You can't falsify a good hypothesis by giving ear to pseudoscience, for instance: you need a good scientific thinker who can suggest an experiment that would thoroughly defeat your proposition. That's how good science progresses. Sort of similar in good metaphysics too, in cases like this.

 

[Atomist]

I get what you're saying, I do. You're not going over my head or I'm not misinterpreting you.

I'm not just here to teach noobs how to think, you know. I'm here to learn myself, too. I want to know if my arguments have contradictions or invalidities.

If someone can only respond with fallacies then they're not really up to the level I'm looking for in someone who can point out to me that the argument fails. Therefore they're not worth my time.

I'm looking for a challenge; I'm looking for a reason that I'm wrong in the argument. It's like trying to falsify in science. You can't falsify a good hypothesis by giving ear to pseudoscience, for instance: you need a good scientific thinker who can suggest an experiment that would thoroughly defeat your proposition. That's how good science progresses. Sort of similar in good metaphysics too, in cases like this.

Okay well in that case... the problem with the argument is that it really allows for people to play apologetic to your argument. Like objections like "well if god does this then X could happen and X is bad so god doesn't do it". I know it's a variation on the "god knows all" thing but it solves for the special pleading.

 

[Gloone]

If God can create the world any way that's logically possible, and it's logically possible to create it in such a way that allows for far less suffering than this world does, then God is culpable in the same way that a negligent carpenter is negligent for building an inferior home (such as one without a roof to block rain) for instance. Except it's worse for God than it is for the carpenter in terms of how negligent He is or how malevolent He is (as a result of deliberate negligence): any negligence on the carpenter's fault may just be because he was ignorant, or didn't have the power to overcome a logically possible goal. Not so for God! God ostensibly knows all possible ways to tackle the problems and has the power to do any of those possible methods. Any negligence on God's part are by definition intentional, and intentional negligence is malevolent: just like failing to feed a baby when you remember the baby needs food (but you decide not to feed it anyway) is intentional negligence/malevolence. See?

Well a house is fairly simple to build. There isn’t really much to it. If we are referring to god as a creator in this situation you have to think about the entire dimensions of the universe and possibly beyond. I mean what if god just built the universe as a temporary playground or something and didn’t really care if someone spilt a glass of liquid on the carpet. I can see why you would say it is worse, because god would have a lot more ground to cover than a carpenter and chances are the carpenter will have some hired help and the god that most people worship today is a monotheist so that extra help is kind of squashed.
The situation with a mother and kid, I know a mother has a huge role to fill in a childs life, but that kind of goes back to the argument about people needing to live up to their expectations for parenting before having a kid and people being responsible for the actions, etc.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

To me the question boils down to when God decided to create conscious beings and new they would suffer, should he have not gone through with it or should he have.

I suggesting that in order to create conscious beings, they had to be less than perfect, because of identity law. How are we to determine that creating x amount of people would not by intrinsic law entail suffering.

We are all with you Meow that we can imagine God could do, but we can imagine all sorts of things that might not be possible.
Obviously God can create an apple that might not suffer, so to speak as we do, but could he do that with sentient beings? I can't fathom why you jump so eagerly to the affirmative on that question.
I am simply asking how can we be so sure, and your program idea simply does not work because it is apple and oranges...