Noone else in this thread has gotten this far, yet. Congratulations. You have stopped attacking the question, and come to the correct conclusion. A lot of others have figured that they should stop existing by some means or other, but realistically, that's not going to happen.
Actually, from what I read several people responded with the same conclusion. They just answered it differently than what you were looking for.
There's little substantive difference between saying "the question is invalid" and saying "people would just make new problems".
It seems like the question you are really asking is not "what if there were no problems?" and instead is "what if everyone woke up one day and all their problems were solved?" There's really no answer to the first question without altering fnudamental concepts like duality, whereas the second question can be answered exactly with the "correct" answer you were looking for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Eventually, doctors and scientists are no longer necessary because all the problems that made them necessary went away. So everyone is a lawyer. Do you see where this is going? I'm hoping some of you can imagine what our lives will be like then, and give me your thoughts.
The only way that scientists and doctors would no longer be necessary would be when we know, and can do, everything that can be known and done.
So, only when we are all knowing and all powerful would those two profession be useless. I see that as more or less an impossibility. (at least, impossible in any reasonable time frame, one would assume the universe would end first.)
There's little substantive difference between saying "the question is invalid" and saying "people would just make new problems".
Yes, functionally those two statements are the same, or, at least, they come from the same line of reasoning.
(I think the OP just wants to feel like he is smarter than us. ;))
The only way that scientists and doctors would no longer be necessary would be when we know, and can do, everything that can be known and done.
So, only when we are all knowing and all powerful would those two profession be useless. I see that as more or less an impossibility. (at least, impossible in any reasonable time frame, one would assume the universe would end first.)
Don't forget that we would be immortal, and never have any health problems.
Don't forget that we would be immortal, and never have any health problems.
I assumed that when along with "all-powerful."
But yes, we would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and immortal. So, I do not even know if we would even all be lawyers. If we know everything what is there left to debate?
Though, I guess conceivably that would be all we COULD do at that point. Though, we would all already know which side was 'right,' probably.
But yes, we would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and immortal. So, I do not even know if we would even all be lawyers. If we know everything what is there left to debate?
Though, I guess conceivably that would be all we COULD do at that point. Though, we would all already know which side was 'right,' probably.
If we knew all, wouldn't we just create our own worlds? Why settle for a simple debate?
I change my vote from insane to gods.
All I know is that my world would have Tyrannosaurus Rexes in jets hunting Triceratops. That world would truely rock, and since it's its own world, its problems would not be my own. Nothing like boyhood fantasies come true.
All-powerful and all-knowing? Hmmm... I know just what I would do! (so as not to be bored)
would make a world with people on it who did not realize how big the universe is. I would make the only way they can percieve the world to be nerve endings in their skin. Just for fun, I would make the most useful of those nerve endings be ones that can pick up light that bounces off stuff stuff, but only at a few wavelengths. Can't make it too easy, right? I would give them two clusters of those nerve endings, "eyes." I would have the only way they can think be by sending chemicles around in a bag of nerves on top of their bodies. Then I'd fill them with water and proteins and have them look at the world and try to figure it all out. Wouldn't that be fun?
Just so I, myself, would not be bored, I would make myself one of them, for the LOLz. I would make myself forget I was all-knowing and all-powerful, and would force myself to live one if their lives. Sounds exciting!
Oh wait......... Then I would be right back like I am now.....
Actually, from what I read several people responded with the same conclusion. They just answered it differently than what you were looking for.
There's little substantive difference between saying "the question is invalid" and saying "people would just make new problems".
It seems like the question you are really asking is not "what if there were no problems?" and instead is "what if everyone woke up one day and all their problems were solved?" There's really no answer to the first question without altering fnudamental concepts like duality, whereas the second question can be answered exactly with the "correct" answer you were looking for.
No, this is not my interpretation. People try to create problems to fill a problem vacuum, which is interesting, but it doesn't invalidate the question. It isn't the the only "correct answer," but it is the only one to that point that could actually happen en masse.
Only a very small percentage of people commit suicide as a response to a major event, and the same is true for insanity. The "I don't do anything response" is certainly debatable, but it isn't an interesting effect, in fact it would be tragic that the line of species at some point just stops doing anything because there isn't anything left to do.
That's why I congratulated the poster. It takes a level of creativity to get past the point of making illogical conclusions. The premise is certainly plausible, the question is in fact valid. Problems are decreasing at a certain rate as we solve them, and the premise supposes that there is a path that eventually will lead to no problems. That's the focus.
If you get hung up on the idea that every last problem can't be solved, or the abstractness of the definition of a problem, then just suppose an exponential decrease in problems compared to today, a major and noticeable decline in problems. It all leads to where I'm trying to take you. Think of it as a creative journey into the future. I'm looking for scenarios that could happen in such a place. And no, I don't think I'm smarter than you, I'm just trying to get you to think about the question in the frame that it is, in fact, possible. I apologize for implying anything else.
I'll even throw out another idea I had on the subject. Via the technological path, there is an inherent flaw in space travel that I don't hear people talking about, and that is even once we figure out how to build very, very fast ships, we still can't accelerate continuously at more than a few G's; our bodies just can't take it. This means to accelerate all the way up to, say 1% of the speed of light and then decelerate back to 0 would take a long time and put us well outside our own solar system. Shorter interplanetary trips will be acceleration limited by our own bodies, as they are not particularly-well built for this activity.
Since, however, it is no longer a problem, maybe we are direct brain wired as is explored in Feed and have no wish to travel, or maybe we will have radically altered our bodies with stronger composite materials to handle space acceleration better. So maybe in a world with no problems my consciousness has been completely downloaded onto a machine built to withstand the rigors of space travel, for example.
No, this is not my interpretation. People try to create problems to fill a problem vacuum, which is interesting, but it doesn't invalidate the question. It isn't the the only "correct answer," but it is the only one to that point that could actually happen en masse.
*sigh*
You've made appeals to logical consistency with respect to this issue.
Well you know, I'm assuming, that in logic there is a property "For all", which is true if and only if there does not exist some contradictory statement.
The proposition "No problems" assumes this "for all" property (i.e. you could say that the set X, the set of all problems is the empty set, such that there does not exist a problem x in the set X).
Therefore if I can show that the elimination problems creates any problems (or is a problem itself), then we can logically agree that we're discussing an impossibility and maybe move on, right?
So, here's a problem: Charles' biggest problem in life is that he wants to be with Katherine, but Katherine doesn't want to be with Charles, but Steven. Steven, on the other hand, wants to be with Charles.
As any solution to this problem creates a new problem (Charles is with Katherine, but Katherine does not want to be with him, or Steven is with Charles but Charles does not want to be with him), this problem is essentially unsolvable in terms of not creating new problems. Thus, the state of "No problems" cannot exist.
/Thread
Now can we get back to talking about this in terms of a philosophical question and stop all conceits to it being logical or having a logical answer?
You've made appeals to logical consistency with respect to this issue.
Well you know, I'm assuming, that in logic there is a property "For all", which is true if and only if there does not exist some contradictory statement.
The proposition "No problems" assumes this "for all" property (i.e. you could say that the set X, the set of all problems is the empty set, such that there does not exist a problem x in the set X).
Therefore if I can show that the elimination problems creates any problems (or is a problem itself), then we can logically agree that we're discussing an impossibility and maybe move on, right?
So, here's a problem: Charles' biggest problem in life is that he wants to be with Katherine, but Katherine doesn't want to be with Charles, but Steven. Steven, on the other hand, wants to be with Charles.
As any solution to this problem creates a new problem (Charles is with Katherine, but Katherine does not want to be with him, or Steven is with Charles but Charles does not want to be with him), this problem is essentially unsolvable in terms of not creating new problems. Thus, the state of "No problems" cannot exist.
/Thread
Now can we get back to talking about this in terms of a philosophical question and stop all conceits to it being logical or having a logical answer?
-E
*sigh*
I'm trying to avoid rigid mathematical structures being applied to this thread because this isn't about infinity, Godel, or paradoxes. The question is vague enough where you can choose a path that does not end up in one of these places. My appeals to logical consistency has more to do with "is this reaction generally sensical?"
For example, if there are suddenly no problems, like the question states, then the focus should be describing the effects it has on you, not let's find ways to show the OP his question can be interpreted such that it is full of holes... If someone creates problems as a direct consequence of there being no problems, then the state has changed but the exercise was still valid, see? You shouldn't continue down the same path because the question is no longer true, so now let's look for other alternatives.
In other words, we are not introducing a fundamental law saying there are no problems, we are introducing a state in which no problems exist, or by extension will continue to exist without some effort by you. Make sense now?
Take air travel as an example. At first, the number of crashes per flight was about 1. Over time, we have seen this rate decrease exponentially, now that it is near 0. Occasionally something may pop up, but air travel is still much safer than driving or elevators. If I say, suddenly there are no crashes, then apply this statement as you move further down that exponential curve, the statement becomes more reliable. In fact, it is true until a crash happens. At some point, after a crash has not occurred for a significant length of time, it would be generally accepted that all the kinks have been worked out and except in the case where you overthrow convention by crashing it yourself, it would remain true. This is the scenario I'm trying to introduce.
I do appreciate the message that this isn't a logic exercise, because that's true. It's a glimpse into a foreign world, something that is hard to become sympathetic to simply because it doesn't currently exist. If gravity suddenly ceased to exist, we may go about trying to recreate gravity, or we might just reinvent our mode of locomotion. Recreating artificial gravity doesn't invalidate the initial state, it was an effect of it.
It is hard to imagine the ramifications of such an event, and it likely won't happen, but we can certainly imagine what it would be like to suddenly not have any gravity to hold us down, and we could probably identify some things we might be likely to do as a result. This deal with no problems is the same thing. It is a situation that you find yourself in, so what do you do?
For example, if there are suddenly no problems, like the question states, then the focus should be describing the effects it has on you, not let's find ways to show the OP his question can be interpreted such that it is full of holes... If someone creates problems as a direct consequence of there being no problems, then the state has changed but the exercise was still valid, see? You shouldn't continue down the same path because the question is no longer true, so now let's look for other alternatives.
No, because the question itself doesn't make sense. We can think of a number of different issues where peoples' problems conflict, in which solving one person's problems creates problems for another person.
This is the nature of human interaction, but it also works on a physical level. We could assume the placement of one object in a physical space has the potential to create a problem when paired with the intention of another physical object to occupy that same space - thus, the immediacy of the solution to which object will occupy the space is itself a problem to be solved.
We could imagine a state of "no problems" in perhaps a sense of a snapshot in time. In fact, I would put forth that when the timeline of events is sufficiently reduced to 0, we can assert that there are no problems, because there is no solution which can be rendered within the given timeframe. However, the philosophical question you're asking doesn't make sense. It would be like asking "What are you thinking when you're not thinking?" The very act of attempting to answer the question invalidates its precepts.
However, I think I gave an answer to the philosophical question above. I am just taking offense to your assertion that some people are attacking this very abstract (and silly) question "incorrectly".
No, because the question itself doesn't make sense. We can think of a number of different issues where peoples' problems conflict, in which solving one person's problems creates problems for another person.
This is the nature of human interaction, but it also works on a physical level. We could assume the placement of one object in a physical space has the potential to create a problem when paired with the intention of another physical object to occupy that same space - thus, the immediacy of the solution to which object will occupy the space is itself a problem to be solved.
We could imagine a state of "no problems" in perhaps a sense of a snapshot in time. In fact, I would put forth that when the timeline of events is sufficiently reduced to 0, we can assert that there are no problems, because there is no solution which can be rendered within the given timeframe. However, the philosophical question you're asking doesn't make sense. It would be like asking "What are you thinking when you're not thinking?" The very act of attempting to answer the question invalidates its precepts.
However, I think I gave an answer to the philosophical question above. I am just taking offense to your assertion that some people are attacking this very abstract (and silly) question "incorrectly".
-E
I'm sorry you take offense, but the fact is really we have apples and oranges here. What some people, you included, want to answer is whether there exists a problem, that given enough time, resources, whatever, cannot be solved. That's really your focus.
That's fine, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm taking the stance that for all intents and purposes, the environment stabilized around you such that your problem count was reduced to 0. If that doesn't make sense to you, you can reread my suggestions on how to pare down the circumstances to eliminate the interactions that are causing you to focus on the oranges, so that you may instead focus on apples. Your world may be smaller, but at least it sort of gets you a little further down the rabbit-hole.
I also apologize for being "silly." Where are my manners? Good Luck!
I'm sorry you take offense, but the fact is really we have apples and oranges here. What some people, you included, want to answer is whether there exists a problem, that given enough time, resources, whatever, cannot be solved. That's really your focus.
That's fine, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm taking the stance that for all intents and purposes, the environment stabilized around you such that your problem count was reduced to 0. If that doesn't make sense to you, you can reread my suggestions on how to pare down the circumstances to eliminate the interactions that are causing you to focus on the oranges, so that you may instead focus on apples. Your world may be smaller, but at least it sort of gets you a little further down the rabbit-hole.
If you want to take it on a more local, less literal level, then can I imagine point at which all of my major life problems are "solved"? Yes. I think there are a lot of people who are in this state. And I think after, say, a month, 6 months, a year of doing this, they have a breakdown, because we internally crave conflict. We do not want to be content. We want to look forward to something down the road. So the "answer" is that if we had no "problems", we would certainly set about to creating new problems immediately.
If you want to take it on a more local, less literal level, then can I imagine point at which all of my major life problems are "solved"? Yes. I think there are a lot of people who are in this state. And I think after, say, a month, 6 months, a year of doing this, they have a breakdown, because we internally crave conflict. We do not want to be content. We want to look forward to something down the road. So the "answer" is that if we had no "problems", we would certainly set about to creating new problems immediately.
-E
Great! That makes sense. Anything else? What problems would you create? Is there an alternative? Say we had large numbers of people that were in danger of breaking down due to boredom, or whatever label you want to put on it. They might not prefer to break down, because it would be seen as regression, and therefore do something proactively to prevent it. What would that look like?
Just throwing some lines out to see if we can get some bites.
If there were no problems, then there could be no problems with there being no problems so, by definition, everything would be satisfactory at worst. Though I wonder if satisfactory would become the new "bad" and then - because that would be a problem - satisfactory would cease to exist and everything would be good at worst.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symtap:, sacrifice White Privilege: Destroy economic injustice.
You are going cause and effect, but I think your logic here is debatable. Also, the response that there would be no problems is something a machine would say. SO maybe you are not human after all? Show some emotion, some future planning.
The premise is certainly plausible, the question is in fact valid. Problems are decreasing at a certain rate as we solve them, and the premise supposes that there is a path that eventually will lead to no problems.
I am not sure it was Kraj's statement about it is very true:
It seems like the question you are really asking is not "what if there were no problems?" and instead is "what if everyone woke up one day and all their [current] problems were solved?"
The reason most people claimed the question was not valued was because they were taking what you were saying at face value. They took it to mean "What if here was no more problems EVER AGAIN?" As in, each problem was solved as soon as it happened.
They where saying THAT could never happen. (though, I am not incapable of imagining it, and then what someone else said would happen would happen, we would all go crazy. Like in that Twilight Zone ep.)
Just like, until we are Gods, we will never not need Doctors and Scientists.
So you said what if there were no problems then you said congratulated the guy that says we would need to make more problems which would be a problem in and of itself so the answer you wanted doesn't fit OP.
life being the same would be dull. no problems, equals no bordum, which in turn creatives activity of some form. some activity of some could be problems to others, and if problems magically dispersed into thin air, humanity would die off, however, the question to that is, is humanaty being gone a problem for earth?
viewing it in renee de cartes ' i think therefor i am' and no one proving to anyone else they exsist, if there were no problems, there would probably be only two people on earth. me and some female that i got along with perfectly ( remember, you dontexsist in this theory. put yourself in my shoes for it to make a little more sense.) the air would be crisp and everything, but then, with no one, who would cook? or clean? thats a problem for my wife, and even though she is just a figment of my imagination, she would complain, causing me problems. she would dissappear, causing my lonliness, rinse, and repeat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
my Magic 2010 opinion
good inspiration +1
new things coming back fog, and L-bolt + a nicer orims chant. +1
no damn/wrath aggro may run rampant, though involving green -1
colors seem a little bit more balanced +1
a LOT of 'new cards' are copies/slightly worse then the old cards they represent -1
lands are nice, but new (+0)
the vampire and dragon they have are great examples of their tribes. (+1)
7/10
With out Problems life as we know it couldn't exist. Because of there being no problems there would be no motivation to create soloutions, so there would be no change. There would only be pointless things to do. there would be nothing other than netrual problemless nothingness that would we could not excape because we wouldn't be able to comprehend anything other than nothing. So even if we still exsisted we would be nothing but hollow, numb, and paralized.
Say, what was that term for something which sounded really philosophically deep when you were stoned, but then you realized it was stupid when you sobered up?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually, from what I read several people responded with the same conclusion. They just answered it differently than what you were looking for.
There's little substantive difference between saying "the question is invalid" and saying "people would just make new problems".
It seems like the question you are really asking is not "what if there were no problems?" and instead is "what if everyone woke up one day and all their problems were solved?" There's really no answer to the first question without altering fnudamental concepts like duality, whereas the second question can be answered exactly with the "correct" answer you were looking for.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
So, only when we are all knowing and all powerful would those two profession be useless. I see that as more or less an impossibility. (at least, impossible in any reasonable time frame, one would assume the universe would end first.)
Yes, functionally those two statements are the same, or, at least, they come from the same line of reasoning.
(I think the OP just wants to feel like he is smarter than us. ;))
Don't forget that we would be immortal, and never have any health problems.
But yes, we would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and immortal. So, I do not even know if we would even all be lawyers. If we know everything what is there left to debate?
Though, I guess conceivably that would be all we COULD do at that point. Though, we would all already know which side was 'right,' probably.
If we knew all, wouldn't we just create our own worlds? Why settle for a simple debate?
I change my vote from insane to gods.
All I know is that my world would have Tyrannosaurus Rexes in jets hunting Triceratops. That world would truely rock, and since it's its own world, its problems would not be my own. Nothing like boyhood fantasies come true.
would make a world with people on it who did not realize how big the universe is. I would make the only way they can percieve the world to be nerve endings in their skin. Just for fun, I would make the most useful of those nerve endings be ones that can pick up light that bounces off stuff stuff, but only at a few wavelengths. Can't make it too easy, right? I would give them two clusters of those nerve endings, "eyes." I would have the only way they can think be by sending chemicles around in a bag of nerves on top of their bodies. Then I'd fill them with water and proteins and have them look at the world and try to figure it all out. Wouldn't that be fun?
Just so I, myself, would not be bored, I would make myself one of them, for the LOLz. I would make myself forget I was all-knowing and all-powerful, and would force myself to live one if their lives. Sounds exciting!
Oh wait......... Then I would be right back like I am now.....
No, this is not my interpretation. People try to create problems to fill a problem vacuum, which is interesting, but it doesn't invalidate the question. It isn't the the only "correct answer," but it is the only one to that point that could actually happen en masse.
Only a very small percentage of people commit suicide as a response to a major event, and the same is true for insanity. The "I don't do anything response" is certainly debatable, but it isn't an interesting effect, in fact it would be tragic that the line of species at some point just stops doing anything because there isn't anything left to do.
That's why I congratulated the poster. It takes a level of creativity to get past the point of making illogical conclusions. The premise is certainly plausible, the question is in fact valid. Problems are decreasing at a certain rate as we solve them, and the premise supposes that there is a path that eventually will lead to no problems. That's the focus.
If you get hung up on the idea that every last problem can't be solved, or the abstractness of the definition of a problem, then just suppose an exponential decrease in problems compared to today, a major and noticeable decline in problems. It all leads to where I'm trying to take you. Think of it as a creative journey into the future. I'm looking for scenarios that could happen in such a place. And no, I don't think I'm smarter than you, I'm just trying to get you to think about the question in the frame that it is, in fact, possible. I apologize for implying anything else.
I'll even throw out another idea I had on the subject. Via the technological path, there is an inherent flaw in space travel that I don't hear people talking about, and that is even once we figure out how to build very, very fast ships, we still can't accelerate continuously at more than a few G's; our bodies just can't take it. This means to accelerate all the way up to, say 1% of the speed of light and then decelerate back to 0 would take a long time and put us well outside our own solar system. Shorter interplanetary trips will be acceleration limited by our own bodies, as they are not particularly-well built for this activity.
Since, however, it is no longer a problem, maybe we are direct brain wired as is explored in Feed and have no wish to travel, or maybe we will have radically altered our bodies with stronger composite materials to handle space acceleration better. So maybe in a world with no problems my consciousness has been completely downloaded onto a machine built to withstand the rigors of space travel, for example.
I hope that helps clarify this a bit.
*sigh*
You've made appeals to logical consistency with respect to this issue.
Well you know, I'm assuming, that in logic there is a property "For all", which is true if and only if there does not exist some contradictory statement.
The proposition "No problems" assumes this "for all" property (i.e. you could say that the set X, the set of all problems is the empty set, such that there does not exist a problem x in the set X).
Therefore if I can show that the elimination problems creates any problems (or is a problem itself), then we can logically agree that we're discussing an impossibility and maybe move on, right?
So, here's a problem: Charles' biggest problem in life is that he wants to be with Katherine, but Katherine doesn't want to be with Charles, but Steven. Steven, on the other hand, wants to be with Charles.
As any solution to this problem creates a new problem (Charles is with Katherine, but Katherine does not want to be with him, or Steven is with Charles but Charles does not want to be with him), this problem is essentially unsolvable in terms of not creating new problems. Thus, the state of "No problems" cannot exist.
/Thread
Now can we get back to talking about this in terms of a philosophical question and stop all conceits to it being logical or having a logical answer?
-E
*sigh*
I'm trying to avoid rigid mathematical structures being applied to this thread because this isn't about infinity, Godel, or paradoxes. The question is vague enough where you can choose a path that does not end up in one of these places. My appeals to logical consistency has more to do with "is this reaction generally sensical?"
For example, if there are suddenly no problems, like the question states, then the focus should be describing the effects it has on you, not let's find ways to show the OP his question can be interpreted such that it is full of holes... If someone creates problems as a direct consequence of there being no problems, then the state has changed but the exercise was still valid, see? You shouldn't continue down the same path because the question is no longer true, so now let's look for other alternatives.
In other words, we are not introducing a fundamental law saying there are no problems, we are introducing a state in which no problems exist, or by extension will continue to exist without some effort by you. Make sense now?
Take air travel as an example. At first, the number of crashes per flight was about 1. Over time, we have seen this rate decrease exponentially, now that it is near 0. Occasionally something may pop up, but air travel is still much safer than driving or elevators. If I say, suddenly there are no crashes, then apply this statement as you move further down that exponential curve, the statement becomes more reliable. In fact, it is true until a crash happens. At some point, after a crash has not occurred for a significant length of time, it would be generally accepted that all the kinks have been worked out and except in the case where you overthrow convention by crashing it yourself, it would remain true. This is the scenario I'm trying to introduce.
I do appreciate the message that this isn't a logic exercise, because that's true. It's a glimpse into a foreign world, something that is hard to become sympathetic to simply because it doesn't currently exist. If gravity suddenly ceased to exist, we may go about trying to recreate gravity, or we might just reinvent our mode of locomotion. Recreating artificial gravity doesn't invalidate the initial state, it was an effect of it.
It is hard to imagine the ramifications of such an event, and it likely won't happen, but we can certainly imagine what it would be like to suddenly not have any gravity to hold us down, and we could probably identify some things we might be likely to do as a result. This deal with no problems is the same thing. It is a situation that you find yourself in, so what do you do?
No, because the question itself doesn't make sense. We can think of a number of different issues where peoples' problems conflict, in which solving one person's problems creates problems for another person.
This is the nature of human interaction, but it also works on a physical level. We could assume the placement of one object in a physical space has the potential to create a problem when paired with the intention of another physical object to occupy that same space - thus, the immediacy of the solution to which object will occupy the space is itself a problem to be solved.
We could imagine a state of "no problems" in perhaps a sense of a snapshot in time. In fact, I would put forth that when the timeline of events is sufficiently reduced to 0, we can assert that there are no problems, because there is no solution which can be rendered within the given timeframe. However, the philosophical question you're asking doesn't make sense. It would be like asking "What are you thinking when you're not thinking?" The very act of attempting to answer the question invalidates its precepts.
However, I think I gave an answer to the philosophical question above. I am just taking offense to your assertion that some people are attacking this very abstract (and silly) question "incorrectly".
-E
I'm sorry you take offense, but the fact is really we have apples and oranges here. What some people, you included, want to answer is whether there exists a problem, that given enough time, resources, whatever, cannot be solved. That's really your focus.
That's fine, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm taking the stance that for all intents and purposes, the environment stabilized around you such that your problem count was reduced to 0. If that doesn't make sense to you, you can reread my suggestions on how to pare down the circumstances to eliminate the interactions that are causing you to focus on the oranges, so that you may instead focus on apples. Your world may be smaller, but at least it sort of gets you a little further down the rabbit-hole.
I also apologize for being "silly." Where are my manners? Good Luck!
If you want to take it on a more local, less literal level, then can I imagine point at which all of my major life problems are "solved"? Yes. I think there are a lot of people who are in this state. And I think after, say, a month, 6 months, a year of doing this, they have a breakdown, because we internally crave conflict. We do not want to be content. We want to look forward to something down the road. So the "answer" is that if we had no "problems", we would certainly set about to creating new problems immediately.
-E
Great! That makes sense. Anything else? What problems would you create? Is there an alternative? Say we had large numbers of people that were in danger of breaking down due to boredom, or whatever label you want to put on it. They might not prefer to break down, because it would be seen as regression, and therefore do something proactively to prevent it. What would that look like?
Just throwing some lines out to see if we can get some bites.
What the hell does that even mean?
I am not sure it was Kraj's statement about it is very true:
The reason most people claimed the question was not valued was because they were taking what you were saying at face value. They took it to mean "What if here was no more problems EVER AGAIN?" As in, each problem was solved as soon as it happened.
They where saying THAT could never happen. (though, I am not incapable of imagining it, and then what someone else said would happen would happen, we would all go crazy. Like in that Twilight Zone ep.)
Just like, until we are Gods, we will never not need Doctors and Scientists.
Thanks to Magus of the Sheep at Scuttlemutt Productions for the best ever sig.
life would be a hell of a lot more boring.
Thanks, Heroes of The Planes! You guys are great!
Actual Truth:
viewing it in renee de cartes ' i think therefor i am' and no one proving to anyone else they exsist, if there were no problems, there would probably be only two people on earth. me and some female that i got along with perfectly ( remember, you dontexsist in this theory. put yourself in my shoes for it to make a little more sense.) the air would be crisp and everything, but then, with no one, who would cook? or clean? thats a problem for my wife, and even though she is just a figment of my imagination, she would complain, causing me problems. she would dissappear, causing my lonliness, rinse, and repeat.
good inspiration +1
new things coming back fog, and L-bolt + a nicer orims chant. +1
no damn/wrath aggro may run rampant, though involving green -1
colors seem a little bit more balanced +1
a LOT of 'new cards' are copies/slightly worse then the old cards they represent -1
lands are nice, but new (+0)
the vampire and dragon they have are great examples of their tribes. (+1)
7/10
12/22/08.