[ThereBeDragons]

I would make the earth flat and expand infinitely far in every direction.

[New2Politics]

Lol. I keep forgetting about this thread.

There would be no jealousy, because jealousy is not a pleasant feeling to have.

So ... lots of key parties?

Non-conformity is a choice and a freedom made by whichever person makes it, so that would be allowed. I would not tell someone that have to conform to something if they don't want to. Much unlike the God of the bible.

And if there are people who don't want to be happy all the time? People who believe, for example, that feelings like jealousy are not altogether bad? If they want to be able to feel these things, and you won't let them, then you're oppressing them. If you do let them, then there's suffering in your universe after all. If your plan is not to include suffering in the first place, so that the agents in your universe have no knowledge of such things, then you're forcing them to conform to your will by limiting the possibilities inherent in said universe. It may be indirect, but it's still oppression. I mean, not even letting people get bored? That's pretty fucking extreme.

[Figlio di Moros]

If nbo negative feelings exist, then why would someone want to feel jealousy? I mean, let's say there's an emotion we as humans can't feel; let's call it "emotion-X". Has anyone wanted to feel emotion X? No, because it doesn't exist.

[Agent Steel]

So ... lots of key parties?

Hmm? Come again?

And if there are people who don't want to be happy all the time? People who believe, for example, that feelings like jealousy are not altogether bad? If they want to be able to feel these things, and you won't let them, then you're oppressing them. If you do let them, then there's suffering in your universe after all. If your plan is not to include suffering in the first place, so that the agents in your universe have no knowledge of such things, then you're forcing them to conform to your will by limiting the possibilities inherent in said universe. It may be indirect, but it's still oppression. I mean, not even letting people get bored? That's pretty fucking extreme.

People want to feel good and no ones wants to suffer. To say that someone LIKES suffering is a contradiction of terms. Suffering implies that you DON'T like it. You're just playing with words here. I think it's fair to assume that nobody likes being bored. But hey, if they do in fact like being bored, then I would allow them to be bored. You're missing the point; By whatever means I have to use to get people to have their own personal heaven, that's what I'd do.

If an insane man wants to do something that would only hurt himself because he's too crazy to realize it, should I allow him to do it? That would be irresponsible of me wouldn't it? You'd have to be insane to not want to be happy. I would give people the choice between heaven and hell...no one in their right mind would choose hell over heaven. NO one chooses to go to hell. It is God that sends people there. I would not demand ANYTHING from ANYONE. I would allow them to do whatever the hell they want, and do everything and anything to grant all their wishes.

[New2Politics]

If nbo negative feelings exist, then why would someone want to feel jealousy? I mean, let's say there's an emotion we as humans can't feel; let's call it "emotion-X". Has anyone wanted to feel emotion X? No, because it doesn't exist.

If your plan is not to include suffering in the first place, so that the agents in your universe have no knowledge of such things, then you're forcing them to conform to your will by limiting the possibilities inherent in said universe.

Hmm? Come again?

That's what she said. Presumably, if there's no jealousy, people will be all about "sharing the love".

People want to feel good and no ones wants to suffer.

Masochists?

You're just playing with words here.

No, I'm not. Your definition of happiness is too narrow. Happiness isn't just mindless contentment. Achievement is one of the greatest types of happiness a person can know, but without such things as adversity and suffering, achievement would lose its meaning.

You're missing the point; By whatever means I have to use to get people to have their own personal heaven, that's what I'd do.

You may have to separate everyone since different things make different people happy.

If an insane man wants to do something that would only hurt himself because he's too crazy to realize it, should I allow him to do it? That would be irresponsible of me wouldn't it? You'd have to be insane to not want to be happy.

What if he wants to climb a mountain for the abovementioned happiness that comes with achievement? Are you going to stop him because there's suffering involved? Because his journey to the top will be fraught with tribulations?

[Agent Steel]

If your plan is not to include suffering in the first place, so that the agents in your universe have no knowledge of such things, then you're forcing them to conform to your will by limiting the possibilities inherent in said universe.

WHAT? I wouldn't be forcing them to conform to my will at all. Suffering doesn't exist remember? It was never created and it has no meaning. Our current universe could have been designed to include numerous other feelings unknown to us, couldn't it? We don't say that we've been limited in our possibilites because there's no reason for us to believe there's anything more than what we know to be true. Figlio di Moros is right.

That's what she said. Presumably, if there's no jealousy, people will be all about "sharing the love".

I still don't understand you.

Masochists?

Masochists do not really enjoy suffering. They enjoy what is typically known as suffering to MOST people. To them, it is pleasurable to do things that other people would find painful.

No, I'm not. Your definition of happiness is too narrow. Happiness isn't just mindless contentment. Achievement is one of the greatest types of happiness a person can know, but without such things as adversity and suffering, achievement would lose its meaning.

Yes you are. I am saying that painful feelings would be non existent and you're saying "but some people actually don't consider them to be painful". My argument is that suffering = suffering, and you're trying to argue that suffering does not equal suffering by playing with words. Remember this is MY universe, and my rules would be different from the rules we know of now. You say you can't know achievement without suffering, but in my universe I'd create it so that you could.

You may have to separate everyone since different things make different people happy.

That's exactly what I'd do. Everyone would have their own personal heaven.

What if he wants to climb a mountain for the abovementioned happiness that comes with achievement? Are you going to stop him because there's suffering involved? Because his journey to the top will be fraught with tribulations?

He won't want to do that in my Universe. There'd be no need for him to have to endure any kind of suffering. He would simply feel fulfilled and happy without needing to suffer.

[New2Politics]

Suffering doesn't exist remember? It was never created and it has no meaning.

If you created a simulated reality populated by artificial intelligences and left out suffering, it would still exist since you, qua the god of that reality, have knowledge of it. It may not exist for the agents in your pet universe, but it would remain a possibility that you could have included and chose not to. So, yes, you would be limiting the possibilities inherent in the universe, and in doing so, you would be limiting the freedoms of its denizens.

I still don't understand you.

How old are you?

Masochists do not really enjoy suffering.

Lol.

They enjoy what is typically known as suffering to MOST people. To them, it is pleasurable to do things that other people would find painful.

They still feel the pain; they just get a kick out of it is all.

You say you can't know achievement without suffering, but in my universe I'd create it so that you could.

I didn't say you couldn't know it; I said it would lose its meaning. You can make people feel like they've achieved great things, but if there was never really anything to overcome, it would all be bs. Given a choice between the false achievement you're offering, and actual achievement, I think a lot more people than you realize would go with actual achievement, even if it means they have to suffer some.

He won't want to do that in my Universe. There'd be no need for him to have to endure any kind of suffering. He would simply feel fulfilled and happy without needing to suffer.

So you get to decide what people want and how they feel? How can you say with a straight face that you aren't forcing them to conform to your will?

[Jackal]

I would actually create it the same way God did, just so I can experience the creation of the universe itself.

[ThereBeDragons]

So you get to decide what people want and how they feel? How can you say with a straight face that you aren't forcing them to conform to your will?

at the point when you're *god* and *making the universe* you certainly can engineer people in a certain way

it's like how the creator of our universe made it so that few men feel the need to chop off their balls and eat them

are we "conforming to god's will"? no; that's just the way things are; maybe super fucked up people might but then super fucked up people in Angel Steel's world might not feel fulfilled and happy

[New2Politics]

it's like how the creator of our universe made it so that few men feel the need to chop off their balls and eat them

are we "conforming to god's will"? no; that's just the way things are

Not including a compulsion to self-harm in an agent is not positive interference - you're not writing anything on the blank slate. However, including a pathalogical aversion to even the slightest amount of suffering would be positive interference. Making it so that suffering isn't possible in the first place would also count as positive interference - it may may not be direct interference, but by limiting what is possible, you are forcing the agent to conform to your will.

[ThereBeDragons]

Making it so that suffering isn't possible in the first place would also count as positive interference - it may may not be direct interference, but by limiting what is possible, you are forcing the agent to conform to your will.

I can't fly, walk through walls, or open doors to other worlds - is God limiting what is possible, and forcing me to conform to his will?

[El Gilroy]

If *I* were a god? Well, I'm kinda forced to design it in a way that allows me to exist within it...but aside from that, It would probably be a variation on earth, with only remnants of human civilisation (some buildings or other structures, and ancient monuments restored) and no sapient life. I'd be alone, watching the pretty sunsets, but that's probably for the best

[New2Politics]

I can't fly, walk through walls, or open doors to other worlds - is God limiting what is possible, and forcing me to conform to his will?

How do you know these things are impossible?

[Figlio di Moros]

How do you know these things are impossible?

Do you know what is impossible? Having sex with yourself; autofellatio is difficult enough, but who can penetrate their own anus? Who would even try? That's why god made it impossible, and arguing otherwise is a sin. Heretic.