SimWorld without suffering

[PolyHedral]

There are no apples and oranges, and the answer to your question is yes, as I will demonstrate.

I'll now cite an even more extreme version of Meow's "program" metaphor: Greg Egan's novel Disaspora. Specifically, the polises. The inhabitants of the polises, Citizens, are disembodied computer programs, most of them uploaded from humans. They are entirely sentient, and are psychologically almost indistinguishable from humans. (including whatever nebulous concept of "free will" you want.)

However, the relevant bit is the polises themselves: They are virtual realities, able to be modified endlessly by their inhabitants. There is literally no limit to the extent of this modification: halfway through the book, they explore 5D space.

How much suffering is there in such a world? You can probably guess the answer by now: None at all. Zip, zilch, zero. Citizens require no resources, and can conjure any imaginable object or structure from nothing. They have literally everything material they could ever want.

Why don't we?

 

[Reptillian]

You have to remember that your perfect world computer program would be a part of our imperfect world. Unless god is a part of a larger imperfect world, then it isn't necessarily fair to compare the perfect computer world to our world.

Don't forget the multiple deities, many programmers, solution to the problem of evil. Maybe there is one really good programmer and one really bad programmer and they're both working on our world. Our only hope is that the expert realizes his buddy is an incompetant nitwit and locks him out of the computer.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

There are no apples and oranges, and the answer to your question is yes, as I will demonstrate.

I'll now cite an even more extreme version of Meow's "program" metaphor: Greg Egan's novel Disaspora. Specifically, the polises. The inhabitants of the polises, Citizens, are disembodied computer programs, most of them uploaded from humans. They are entirely sentient, and are psychologically almost indistinguishable from humans. (including whatever nebulous concept of "free will" you want.)

However, the relevant bit is the polises themselves: They are virtual realities, able to be modified endlessly by their inhabitants. There is literally no limit to the extent of this modification: halfway through the book, they explore 5D space.

How much suffering is there in such a world? You can probably guess the answer by now: None at all. Zip, zilch, zero. Citizens require no resources, and can conjure any imaginable object or structure from nothing. They have literally everything material they could ever want.

Why don't we?

Simple... Point of reference. It is apples and oranges if we after the fact, as sentient beings are aware of suffering explore the possibilities of a world without suffering. In order to do that we would have to be aware of what suffering is.
Can you not comprehend that without knowledge of suffering you as a programmer would never know if what you are creating is suffering or not.

Now why this is apples and oranges, is when God set out to divide himself, or use some of his life force to create something, by default that something had to become less than absolute perfect. From that point of reference WE today have no idea what is entailed for God to actually do such a thing. WE can not compare it to US creating a program, when WE are already aware of what is or isn't suffering. It raises too many problems...

 

[PolyHedral]

You have to remember that your perfect world computer program would be a part of our imperfect world. Unless god is a part of a larger imperfect world, then it isn't necessarily fair to compare the perfect computer world to our world.

Isn't God all-powerful, or at least, nearly so?

Don't forget the multiple deities, many programmers, solution to the problem of evil. Maybe there is one really good programmer and one really bad programmer and they're both working on our world. Our only hope is that the expert realizes his buddy is an incompetant nitwit and locks him out of the computer.

But that would involve polythiesm!

Simple... Point of reference. It is apples and oranges if we after the fact, as sentient beings are aware of suffering explore the possibilities of a world without suffering. In order to do that we would have to be aware of what suffering is.
Can you not comprehend that without knowledge of suffering you as a programmer would never know if what you are creating is suffering or not.

You don't need to assign a label to it, but any programmer who sets out to create sentient life would understand that finite resources would lead to some who don't get the resources they need. (God might not have done that, but I think it's generally assumed that He did.) When those resources are biologically necessary, suffering is the result.

Now why this is apples and oranges, is when God set out to divide himself, or use some of his life force to create something, by default that something had to become less than absolute perfect. From that point of reference WE today have no idea what is entailed for God to actually do such a thing. WE can not compare it to US creating a program, when WE are already aware of what is or isn't suffering. It raises too many problems...

The idea of there being a finite amount of God to divide, IMO, raises a lot more. :sarcastic

 

[Just_me_Mike]

You don't need to assign a label to it, but any programmer who sets out to create sentient life would understand that finite resources would lead to some who don't get the resources they need. (God might not have done that, but I think it's generally assumed that He did.) When those resources are biologically necessary, suffering is the result.

I would think creating anything that "requires" resources opens the floor to ask whether infinite resources are possible. You seem to dismiss that so quickly.

Before the 1900's there exponentially less people than we have now, resources were not the problem, so introducing resources into the discussion seems rather pointless, unless I have missed your point.

The idea of there being a finite amount of God to divide, IMO, raises a lot more. :sarcastic

Again it is your frame of reference that needs to be examined. God can not do that which is impossible. While it may seem elementary there is a difference in turning water into wine (which simply breaks physics) and making a square be a circle ( which breaks intrinsic law)

To think God can create sentient beings that are void of suffering, assumes we know what God was setting out to do in the first place. Until we can narrow down what is is that God was setting out to do, only then can we really speculate on whether he could have avoided suffering of any kind.

I feel like I am spinning my wheels, either I am making vapid discussion or I am not speaking clear enough. Not sure I will continue, as I seem to be repeating myself.

Please excuse me...

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

Give me an example of such an objection and I'll show immediately how X is avoidable.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

This would be intentional negligence for an omnipotent/omniscient being and therefore malevolent.

 

[Meow Mix]

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...

No, the programming idea isn't apples and oranges. There is nothing in principle different from us programming and God creating. The universe is God's program.

Even if you're going to object to my argument with the argument from noncognitiveness, surely you can easily see how suffering could be nearly entirely eradicated even if you question the possibility of it being entirely eradicated. There are no logical parallels between the existence of sentient beings and leukemia kids, and if you argue that there "might be" then that'd be special pleading and you'd need to support the argument.

Your objection simply doesn't have the force to curtail the problem of evil as I've explained it.

 

[Meow Mix]

You have to remember that your perfect world computer program would be a part of our imperfect world. Unless god is a part of a larger imperfect world, then it isn't necessarily fair to compare the perfect computer world to our world.

Don't forget the multiple deities, many programmers, solution to the problem of evil. Maybe there is one really good programmer and one really bad programmer and they're both working on our world. Our only hope is that the expert realizes his buddy is an incompetant nitwit and locks him out of the computer.

Then your suggested solution to the Problem of Evil is "God is not omnipotent" or "God is not omniscient" or both.

*Shrug*

The point is that either omnipotence, omniscience, existence, or benevolence has to be dropped from God's attributes in order to resolve the Problem of Evil. It is a solvable problem, the problem is just that most people refuse to do drop any of these things.

 

[Meow Mix]

I would think creating anything that "requires" resources opens the floor to ask whether infinite resources are possible. You seem to dismiss that so quickly.

There's nothing logically contradictory about God continually refilling resources; nor would it even "fatigue" or "drain" God to do so unless you argue He isn't omnipotent.

Again it is your frame of reference that needs to be examined. God can not do that which is impossible. While it may seem elementary there is a difference in turning water into wine (which simply breaks physics) and making a square be a circle ( which breaks intrinsic law)

Turning water into wine is logically possible. Making a square-circle is not possible (but turning a square INTO a circle is indeed possible).

To think God can create sentient beings that are void of suffering, assumes we know what God was setting out to do in the first place. Until we can narrow down what is is that God was setting out to do, only then can we really speculate on whether he could have avoided suffering of any kind.

I feel like I am spinning my wheels, either I am making vapid discussion or I am not speaking clear enough. Not sure I will continue, as I seem to be repeating myself.

Please excuse me...

God could create sentient beings that are void of suffering. You're arguing that maybe that wasn't God's intention. Well, that's fine, but again you're just solving the problem of evil by saying God is malevolent.

PoE is only solved by dropping omnipotence, omniscience, existence, or benevolence. You seem to continuously vote for dropping "benevolence."

It's not a question of whether God "could" have prevented suffering -- it's logically possible, therefore He definitely could have. Unless you're wanting to drop omnipotence too, which you can. Either of those does solve the problem of evil but you end up with a "god" that I'd question why anyone would worship.

 

[Willamena]

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?

Because "God" doesn't make reality. We do. We each make the only version of reality we can know.

Clearly, collision detection rules are a significant source of suffering in God's program (the world).

Yeah, I suffered to colide with a thought just this morning.

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.

Yes, we could live without thought and idea, but how much fun would that be?

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.

Generally, the better argument is the eastern one, that allows that we create suffering.

 

[Meow Mix]

Because "God" doesn't make reality. We do. We each make the only version of reality we can know.
Generally, the better argument is the eastern one, that allows that we create suffering.

I really doubt that leukemia kids can wish their suffering away or try to ignore it. I really... really doubt it.

 

[Gloone]

I would think creating anything that "requires" resources opens the floor to ask whether infinite resources are possible. You seem to dismiss that so quickly.

Before the 1900's there exponentially less people than we have now, resources were not the problem, so introducing resources into the discussion seems rather pointless, unless I have missed your point.

If resources are in issue then we would need to know what the resources are that are being used. Are they resources that are being used in our world or one that is parallel and fuels an external one? One example that comes to mind is where our solar system acts as a fueling mechanism as it turns. Kind of like a generator of some sort. Maybe the program is a lot larger than we think and it requires further investigation.

Sure saying people should not suffer and should be able to grow another limb if one gets lopped off seems like a easy quick fix, but the solution may be a little more involved than just allowing everyone the power to conjure an self-heal. How is that going to affect the parallel world if there is one and what type of impact will it have on ours if we were capable of having such abilities. I mean maybe god hasn’t quite got the message that we understand what pain and suffering is so the program continues to run as is. I mean maybe there is no reason to change the program if it doesn’t want to run according to design.

 

[PolyHedral]

Because "God" doesn't make reality. We do. We each make the only version of reality we can know.

No, we don't, and frankly, such an idea is the height of ridiculousness. If we did, there wouldn't be any suffering in the first place. Incidentally, be very careful about how far you go along this line of reasoning, since the wrong conclusion could... upset people.

Yes, we could live without thought and idea, but how much fun would that be?

Suffering follows directly from thoughts and ideas?

Generally, the better argument is the eastern one, that allows that we create suffering.

The only convincing argument I've seen along those lines relies on the fact that there are finite resources. Without that limit, all arguments break down.

If resources are in issue then we would need to know what the resources are that are being used. Are they resources that are being used in our world or one that is parallel and fuels an external one? One example that comes to mind is where our solar system acts as a fueling mechanism as it turns. Kind of like a generator of some sort. Maybe the program is a lot larger than we think and it requires further investigation.

Demonstratively false. There is a limited amount of energy in the universe, and so a limited amount of resources. There is no evidence of any sort of parallel universe or anything like it.

 

[Gloone]

Demonstratively false. There is a limited amount of energy in the universe, and so a limited amount of resources. There is no evidence of any sort of parallel universe or anything like it.

How can you demonstrate anything if you don't even know or have never been to a parallel world. I was not necissarily pointing out an entire universe, just a world. I think you took it to a larger scale when I was talking about our world and our solar system not any of the others. It can't be demonstrated, how do you view space then? Besides saying it is nothing, you don't think it could act as some sort of conductor.

I mean programmers do have a thing called imagining. So do other fields. Parallel Universes: Scientific American

 

[Falvlun]

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?

Can you explain how that is a case of special pleading? I remember we touched on this in a previous thread, but to restate: Since God is, by definition, an exceedingly unique individual with exceedingly unique abilities, it would not be "special pleading" to assign him powers beyond that of normal individuals.

 

[Meow Mix]

Can you explain how that is a case of special pleading? I remember we touched on this in a previous thread, but to restate: Since God is, by definition, an exceedingly unique individual with exceedingly unique abilities, it would not be "special pleading" to assign him powers beyond that of normal individuals.

It's special pleading because it's saying "Being X does seemingly impossible thing Y through some unknowable means." That's special pleading.

Is it POSSIBLE that God could do unknowable things? Yes.

But it's irrational to ARGUE so specifically without any evidence. Otherwise, for instance, you might say "There are no clouds in the sky, it's probably not going to rain" and I could retort with "Well your argument is defeated because it's possible leprechauns will make it rain through some unknowable means."

It's special pleading. It's fallacious.

 

[Falvlun]

It's special pleading because it's saying "Being X does seemingly impossible thing Y through some unknowable means." That's special pleading.

Is it POSSIBLE that God could do unknowable things? Yes.

But it's irrational to ARGUE so specifically without any evidence. Otherwise, for instance, you might say "There are no clouds in the sky, it's probably not going to rain" and I could retort with "Well your argument is defeated because it's possible leprechauns will make it rain through some unknowable means."

It's special pleading. It's fallacious.

Are you not countering with your own special pleading, then? "God could create a world without suffering, with free-will, and maximal happiness by some unknown means." We don't know how God could do it; we just assume he could.

Well, if we are assuming omnipotence, then why not assume omni-benevolence? "We don't know why God included suffering, but since he is omni-benevolent, it must somehow maximize the amount of goodness."

The problem with your leprauchaun analogy is that we are assuming that God exists in the argument, and that it is possible for him to alleviate suffering. So, it would be like assuming leprauchauns existed and they have the ability to create rain. Thus, it would be reasonable to argue that the leprauchauns could make it rain, despite the absence of clouds.

 

[PolyHedral]

We don't know how God could do it; we just assume he could.

Virtual reality isn't hard when you control the whole universe.

Well, if we are assuming omnipotence, then why not assume omni-benevolence? "We don't know why God included suffering, but since he is omni-benevolent, it must somehow maximize the amount of goodness."

That's Meow's point; Assuming that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolant directly contradicts reality (since suffering exists) and therefore can't be true.

 

[Gloone]

I mean we could always get really silly with this argument like Stephen Hawkins does with his and say the abominable snowman is on a another planet somewhere and learned how to chunk boulders at other galaxies. That is what caused the moon to hit earth and moved the planet closer to the sun which in term causes some disease, bacteria, etc. Now it is time to kill the abominable snowman.

Exhibit A:

He seems to be a happy fellow but he is really a total goof.