Put in the philosophy section because I don’t want particularly religious answers.
If I made the world
I love the Leibnitz quote; ‘another world would be worse’ lol, but then I got to thinking about what kind of world I would create if I were the matrix programmer or whathaveyou.
I would build a world that had everything in it, there would be far to many questions concerning what is good or bad about a thing otherwise, and what’s more I would not know until I had experienced them and gained the wisdom of said experience.
But lets say I had the knowledge of those things without the learned wisdoms, the world I would build would contain all the sufferings evils and death, but id want to keep all that out of my more perfect world. I’d create a mental realm and a material world, I’d wrap all the badness up within the context of that material, it would be a physical wall between heaven and earth!
I’d probably just make the souls, skip the physical world, and let them into heaven. That seems to be the end game anyway, right? God wants us to go to heaven?
For Christians maybe, but religion aside, wouldn’t you want the souls to be wise and hence they would have to go through the material world first? And wouldn’t you create an everythingness in some manner, say as much as can be created together.
If I made a world, it would be a single being, as great as possible. There would be no need for fragmentation. It would rival my own power whatever power I may have. However, if I got to change this world and universe instead, I would try to create robots or angels or something which naturally wanted to fix and improve everything.
By doing such, you would terminate all life.
Fortunately, Life doesn’t allow such people to succeed except for temporary moments during which they exterminate themselves.
That would depend upon from where I actually started.
Assuming “people” already existed in basic form, I would create a source from which those people could learn exactly how and why they could and should get along with each other… joyfully and eternally.
For myself, it might be interesting to allow things to begin such as they did before in every which way it happened before. I might not want to change a thing - do anything differently. Wouldn’t you be curious to see what happens this time around? Could it possibly be the same as before? I think it was Heraclitus who said that no wo[man] walks through the same river twice. Would we really have to affect or is it effect lol some kind of a change - or would cause and effect simply do that without us intervening? Would there be that exact kind of sameness or would it be such a different world even though it began as it did before? If there was a movie screen which could speed up everything without my having missed a thing in this world of which I speak, and in which I could perfectly and thoroughly see all differences and sameness, I would be so interested and thrilled to see what occurred.
You would not want to share your world? Not even with a bunch of hot babes?
We probably will create robots.
I want you to consider the entirety and its evolution, if you make something what would it become?
How many expressions of your creation would you really want, infinite?
that’s an important point ~ concerning what we start with!
I would want something which can evolve into many expressions, eventually complexity grows and you would get intelligent beings, and I would want them to learn lessons for themselves.
I would want the ‘wall’ between the finished world or heaven, and the realm of suffering and death, simply because I wouldn’t ultimately want those things [you wouldnt want death to occur in heaven surely?]. Indeed I’d want the material world to eventually expire once its job has been done.
Arcturus Descending
I think it would be the same yes, and yes that’s what I would want.
I think that’s its job, no?
I think you’d have the same fundamentals, stars planets etc, but a different expression each time. There is too much improbability for repetition.
Same here, but if you saw it all sped up surely you would indeed miss so much?
Assuming that this is about what is essentially “all of creation” and not just “the world” per se:
I would make a world that would continually remake itself beyond my comprehension so I (or whatever I might become that could end up wholly different than I am now through this even) and everyone else if we continue to exist would forever be experiencing entirely novel things in every temporal point we can perceive.
A slight tangent: as a creator, I would be concerned about the challenge/suffering balance. Concerned that there really is no balance point. Sure, I could start with the idea of NO SUFFERING. But I wonder what options would be left. Not that challenges have to include suffering, but I would sure have to count on some deep, deity-inherent intuition to keep everything interesting without suffering somewhere in there at least for some. Thank God I’d be a God.
I’d assume that that too would vary, and perhaps an infinite amount of states of that beyond our current comprehension of that as a one-dimensional gradient. In this vein I would note that absolute non-novelty would itself be a novel condition for all people existing today, as would experiencing non-existence and watching one’s self die from the third person perspective. Three examples of things we cannot truly comprehend and supposedly will never experience in this universe.
A lot of suffering comes from our ignorance, it is only through wisdom that we can alleviate that. The alternative here for me is no such wisdoms.
Other sufferings like disease cancer etc, come from the evolution that created us, and again I have to wonder if we can have one without the other.
Suzera
Maybe out of body experience gives us that third person perspective? We experience non-existence because that’s what mind is perhaps.
didn’t understand the rest of your post as I don’t know your mind-set enough.
Ah, but when your self dies, how is your self still having an out of body experience? I don’t mean merely the death of the body, but the death of the self.
Perhaps technically true on the non-existence front, but I meant more experiencing not having any experiences at a given point.
Every moment you experience in this world is at least minimally novel for it is at least at a new subjective time and under slightly different circumstances.
Well we have to assume that the self entirely dies, I prefer to say ‘the experiencer’ because self, soul, spirit are misleading. I have a few threads around here on such things if interested at some point. Essentially I don’t feel that the experiencer and mental quale are physical, though they do naturally interact with it.
I assume that there would come a time when we no longer get experiences from sensory sources, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t get experiences on the purely mental [non bodily] level.
that’s true ~ good point! I suppose that as long as we are connected to ‘this mortal coil’ there are comparatives between past and those novel futures. In fact, perhaps our past largely creates those futures, though I’d like to think there is an element of the novel as well.
I don’t think the soul, self and sprit really exist, but as much as they can be said to exist as illusions, I still find it a bit incomprehensible to think about that illusion experiencing even the moment of or just after the death of itself. Even in your words, “the experiencer” experiencing the moment of or just after its death seems incomprehensible.
But the mental is essentially what we view as “self” right? In either case, even the mental would not exist in this scenario, but yet whatever of you would be able to experience would do so despite the fact that it does not have any means of doing so because it does not exist to do so.
Our current tends to create much of what we in retrospect think of as our past because memory is a fickle thing that is extremely inaccurate compared to what actually happened. Our current mental state “writes in” a lot of the information when we retrospect because our retrospection is full of holes, but yet our mind demands that something is there, and subconscious processes rise to that challenge to give us something however inaccurate it may be. In actuality, every time we retrospect, it is at least minimally novel because of the ever-present and varying error built in to the process.
Not to channel Mutcer or anything, but why couldn’t God make a universe where no one was ignorant or lacking wisdom was just another way of having a great time. Maybe people would choose to be ignorant for a while, just to have fun that way for a change.
Hmm I see the mental as non material, but if you see it as material then your position is right by that.
Moreno
I don’t think wisdom can be created, one can create or have all the omniscience one wishes for, but that’s not the same as having wisdom from experiencing what knowledge means. If someone you love dies, someone could have told you what that is like, but when you experienced it, it would be something else, sometimes such things are pure emotion and cannot be reasoned in any way.
Hence I don’t think life is about fun, its about real.
If power includes the inability to think someone else’s thoughts and feelings then yes, but all power could mean the ability to create the singularity = all energy. We can have all of one set without that limited the all-ness of a given other. Though I do see the concern here with omniscience and omnipotence, one would expect their deity to have no limits.