Obviously a hypothetical scenario. There is no way to pass on the knowledge to anyone else. Time freezes for you only, and once you have your answer you are out of this world.
The question can allow you to see into the past, present and future and gain comprehension of any topic/issue. But it’s only one question.
Edit: the point isn’t “how to cheat death”. You can’t. Your body is frozen and there is nothing you can do with this knowledge other than knowing it, and die. So if you would rather be frozen in a limbo just thinking of numbers for eternity, be my guest.
Such a variety of replies, it’s been really interesting to read them!
What would you want to know? Personally I’d want to see a timelapse or milestone glimpses of humanity’s future until the end of Earth’s existence (if we survive that long)
When is going to be the year of the Linux desktop?
Next year
™
Ah the Ferrari delivery methodology. Love it.
(currentYear + 1);
I am interested to see what 2024 has in store for the Linux desktop.
Immutable distros seem to be the new cool thing, and for once I buy it, they greatly increase stability and reproducibility. It’s about time we see the rule 34 of Linux desktop configuration, if you can think of it there is already a GitHub repository with a configuration for it.
Also, gaming has greatly improved! If a few years ago you said to me I could buy a PS5 controller to play games on my Linux machine, I would lose my mind. Well, the order is arriving on Thursday!
Some governments are making honest efforts to go full open source, investing in the libre office and other tooling they deem necessary.
Last but not least, nowadays most apps are browser based, they are cross platform by default.
“rule 34 of Linux desktop configuration”
You… want to fuck Linux desktop configs?
To be fair, I’ve seen some Linux desktop configs that were pretty fucked.
Anyway, don’t kink shame. Unless your kink is kink shaming. In that case I’m not sure what you’re supposed to do. Start a religion, I guess?
Start a religion, I guess?
That got me good, thanks for the laugh!
To be fair, I’ve seen some Linux desktop configs that were pretty fucked.
That’s the reason I named it the “rule 34 of linux desktop configs”. In the past 2 years, I have observed a friend’s journey to a fully automated setup. It started with a bash script, which was then converted to an ansible playbook, then a python script, and now a ublue config.
The depths some people will go to fuck (figuratively) with their machines is inspiring!
Haha, no worries.
Sounds like your friend’s config file will be turing-complete soon. Then it will need it’s own operating system. With it’s own config file.
3303
20xx
What’s “the Linux desktop”? New distro?
Was I ever a good impact on someone else’s life?
Simple and sweet. Let’s you go to the next thing either with your head held high or knowing for sure if you just lived and died.
I’d rephrase this to “was I ever a good impact on someone else’s life that I was unaware of?”
Because most people are fairly confident they’ve had a good influence on “someone’s” life. My partner has told me as much, and I’ve said it to them. Even if just their parents or something, there’s typically obvious answers to this question.
I’d want to know the non-obvious answers.
I like this one. Even better. “Who are the people I have positively influenced and what were the key interactions we shared?”
It would be a flashback of loving moments of humanity.
I’d love to see a reel from someone like a social worker, teacher, nurse etc
deleted by creator
I’d pick an irrational number, say pi, and ask for every decimal digit of it. Then, I have infinite time to walk around the world in explore mode (i.e. I can’t die, and hence don’t need to eat etc…, and am effectively an infinite energy source, and can interact with objects) while time is frozen. This effectively makes me a god, but only for one point in time, with the ability to create a discontinuity in the world state at that point. I’d travel around the whole world (even if it involved swimming oceans) and try to make it so that the infinite sum of each action I take while the world is frozen converges on a world that is in a much better state infinitesimally after the moment compared to infinitesimally before.
But if you actually had infinite time, then that would mean that the world for all intents and purposes has ended. It would never continue, ever. No matter what you do, it would have absolutely no impact at all.
Furthermore, I imagine if you actually had to wait infinitely long for the answer to finish, that would be like hell. There is only so much you can look at in a frozen world, assuming you would even be able to move at all. I can hardly imagine any happiness after some billions and trillions of years of no new stimuli in a frozen world.
That’s how you trigger a blue screen.
No death for an infinity is a torture in itself.
And in a moment you’ll learn, that at your scale, for the practical purposes, the universe rounds pi to n numbers. E.g. ~3.1416. Check & mate.
it would be like a detective game, figuring out intent between non-verbal, static people and deciding what is the right course of action
Well I guess my bad for not being more explicit with my question, but your body is frozen as well. Only your mind has the ability to absorb the knowledge of one answer, and then you are gone. I’ve seen many asking for infinite answers in hopes of stretching time in a limbo, which wasn’t the spirit of my original post.
How is the entity or power that has the ability to grant me such knowledge connected to the existence of the universe?
Magic
I want stats like the end of a game. How many red lights did I run, did anyone die by my actions, how many hours did I sleep, how many meals did I eat. Things like that.
You might like this short film then it’s in line with that and it’s honestly pretty similar to this post in general.
Haha love this
is p != np
I thought of asking that one, but then if the answer was no, my last thought would probably be that I was really worried about what happens when the living humans figure it out.
Probably a lot of encryption would fail. That would be bad.
I guess that depends on whether n != 1
What was the point?
To exist.
What an awful thing to do to someone
There can’t be a point unless you make one.
Maybe, you get to choose the point. What were the moments that made it all worth it?
What worthwhile moment never faded into oblivion?
You need thinggs to be eternal to matter to you? Tall order.
Petting my cat
Depending on your perspective of time, none of them did. All of them happened and are as much a part of reality as any other moment. We may have moved past those moments, but that’s only an artifact of our relative position in the timeline.
Just “Why?” Leave this magical answers being confused and questioning humanity, like the rest of us.
Just ‘because’
Because 42
In ASCII, 42 is an asterisk, which is a common computer placeholder for “whatever you want it to be”. The computer in Hitchhikers wasn’t just pooping out a random number, but in the most computer way possible it pretty much just said life is what you make of it.
So yea, 42.
Bro. I love this. TIL. Never thought of checking the ASCII of 42.
I would like to know the detailed life history of every human that was ever born…
Start taking I’ll wait :)
Sounds like a nightmare when you’re dying and probably in pain… It extends that painful state for a virtually infinite time.
Not to mention the overwhelming amounts of unimaginable suffering you would see.
And joy, but I’d say being suddenly ommiciant to all the life of humanity but completely impotent sounds awful
The prompt said that time freezes. No time = no pain.
Im not sure if there would be pain, but it’s a possibility. When I thought of the question I figured everything but your mind would freeze, perhaps I should have been more explicit when I phrased it. I understand those asking to experience the lives of others - even strangers- but I can’t understand those asking for an infinite answer such as a number in hopes of… What? Staying in a limbo doing nothing but absorbing a number?
By what mechanism did the universe come to be, or if it simply always existed, why does it exist in this particular way with these particular laws?
I was going to say “are we in a simulation” but this would work too.
Because of it didn’t it wouldn’t, but it does so it is.
Because all possible universes with all possible combinations of particular laws exist.
Maybe even the impossible ones exist.
And they all came to be the same way the number 3 “came to” exist.
Why do hotdogs come in packs of ten while hotdog buns come in packs of six?
So you buy 10 packs of buns and 6 packs of hotdogs
Life hack: Halve your spendings by only bying 5 packs of buns and 3 packs of hotdogs.
Hotdog and hotdog bun production companies hate this simple trick.
You’re just pandering to the lowest common denominator
Good news! Due to shrinkflation, hot dogs now come in 8-packs. Even better, the downsized buns fit standard dogs - no need to buy bun-length skinny hot dogs!
So, I figured it out. Why hot dogs come in packages of ten and hot dog buns come in packages of eight. See, the thing is, life doesn’t always work out according to plan. So be happy with what you’ve got, because you can always get a hot dog.
Assuming other implications (existence of an afterlife and God) with this scenario I would have but one question. Why? Why everything? Honestly I would be mad furious if there was an afterlife. More so if there was a God.
“In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
What if the afterlife was universally accessible like a participation prize and relative to each individual such that there wasn’t a single idealized version of happiness?
Is that still fury invoking?
Not OP, but my fury in this instance would be because an omnipotent god allowed for all the suffering that happens to all living creatures when we could all just live with love and joy in our hearts, and god chose this instead.
What if the creator isn’t omnipotent and what if the universe isn’t the original copy?
One of the ways to potentially achieve an afterlife would be to recreate the living creatures and their environment as simulated copies that wouldn’t need to die. The physical originals would die, but the copies would live on.
Is it still unethical to recreate an evolved and chaotic universe of suffering if you could by doing so give each participant a much longer existence in a relative paradise for everyone?
Would it be more ethical to have whitewashed history such that you exclusively recreate the privileged and fortunate denying those that suffered in an original reality from representation in a functionally eternal and relative paradise? i.e. Would it be better to pretend orphans didn’t exist than to accurately represent the historical reality while giving those recreations the opportunity to reunite with their parents in an uncapped afterlife?
Yes. Recreating a ‘relative paradise’ where people have to suffer over and over would be worse than having to live it once. If you could recreate the universe, would you make people suffer? Forever?
What the fuck even is this argument? There’s no whitewashing if you start over every time anyway. Just make it better from the beginning.
If you could recreate the universe, would you make people suffer? Forever?
Huh?
No, the posed scenario is where you would recreate the individual as accurately as possible to match the historical reality and then after death give them an effective eternity of relative paradise as best matches their individuality.
So an orphan could spend years and years of happiness with the parents they never really knew whereas someone with abusive parents might never see their parents at all and instead chose to erase traumatic memories or do whatever it is that gives them joy.
The recreation of suffering in the thought experiment is solely for the purpose of recreating people who suffered such that you can give them an afterlife absent of suffering as they see fit. Because without recreating the suffering and the sufferers you’d only be creating a false depiction of Earth and humanity where you’d effectively exclude the downtrodden from resurrection by way of recreation.
They don’t suffer over and over - they only suffer once in reliving an accurately representative life to the original reality upon which they are based, and from then on its their relative paradise.
I see what you’re saying, but I still don’t understand why the suffering has to occur here. If you have the data to recreate the suffering, you can just move on to the paradise without repeating it.
You’ve come up with this scenario, but it doesn’t address my initial point that a god who created and allows suffering can suck it.
If you have the data to recreate the suffering, you can just move on to the paradise without repeating it.
It’s a good point, but there’s two caveats.
(1) That only works if individual lives are deterministic and have no free will, but not if you want the individuals born into historical circumstances have their own self-determination from there on out.
(2) What’s the subjective experience of that recreation? In a cosmic sense, everything we are experiencing right now has already happened in a different reference frame. Even if some being snapped its fingers and recreated a historical timeline all at once, it might not feel that way to the individual consciousnesses getting up to speed. Even if everything is deterministic and was instantaneously recreated, we may just be having an illusionary experience of it as a continuous series of events from birth to death. A variation of Boltzmann’s brain.
A couple of problems: a copy of me is not me, no amount of post-life paradise justifies injustice in life, not everyone deserve hapiness (no matter what moral framework you use), what is the point of life if there is an eternal paradice for everyone.
From the moment I introduce afterlife some sort of God becomes necessary for any morality to work.
Having no God works if I assume that life is finite. If life is finite then I must make myself as happy as possible. Living around and with people I can’t just be as selfish as possible, I must conform to society if I want to be in society, otherwise I will make my life so much more difficult.a copy of me is not me
That’s true. Unless you are the copy of an original, in which case the copy is you.
no amount of post-life paradise justifies injustice in life
Is it just to perform a painful surgery on a sick child in order to save their life?
not everyone deserve hapiness
Agree to disagree. The notion of cosmic justice for souls whose behavior in life is significantly dictated by the terms of their embodiment and environment is, to me, insane.
what is the point of life if there is an eternal paradice for everyone
Maybe the point of life isn’t absolute and is up to each person to find and define individually.
If there is any degree of intelligence in the design of the universe, the fact that there’s no absolute frame of reference for macro observations and relative measurements of micro details might just be relevant.
That’s true. Unless you are the copy of an original, in which case the copy is you.
In which case I’m not the original, my point exactly.
Is it just to perform a painful surgery on a sick child in order to save their life?
The analogy breaks down rather quickly when you start to expand the definition of a surgery. Dying because of war is not surgery and if it is who and how decides on the goal of the surgery?
What if I don’t want the surgery and want to live out the rest of my days in comfort?
Agree to disagree. The notion of cosmic justice for souls whose behavior in life is significantly dictated by the terms of their embodiment and environment is, to me, insane.
I actually agree with you. However my point is about a subjective morality rather than a cosmic one. Any definition of morality and meaning of life will ultimately break if this life is not the one and only. As soon as you try to fit afterlife into this you have to have some omnipotent power to define the rules of it. Otherwise none of your actions matter, you’ll still get afterlife, be it heaven or hell.
Having life be finite and bound to physical conditions: being a social creature in an imperfect world. Is enough to have a robust and consistent moral rules and meaning. That’s where my Occam’s razor kicks.
In the end no matter what framework of thought you choose there is gonna be good and bad things and people doing them, hence not everyone will deserve happiness.
Maybe the point of life isn’t absolute and is up to each person to find and define individually.
If there is any degree of intelligence in the design of the universe, the fact that there’s no absolute frame of reference for macro observations and relative measurements of micro details might just be relevant.
And that’s where my anger would stem from. If there is no knowable and proovable absolute truth. Than the simplest subjective frame of reference that makes sense is that there is no meaning or reason. Life is finite, make the best of it and enjoy it to the fullest because that’s all there is.
I’m not going into the aspects of life that are not individual and affect others. There are law based, moral and social-utalitarian reasons why I would want to live in a society and bring as little suffering as I possibly can.
What if I don’t want the surgery and want to live out the rest of my days in comfort?
Aye, that is a key issue as there’s no informed consent to being born.
But how much of that is the fault of a creator of a universe and how much one’s parents? FWIW, one of the traditions that thought similar to what we are discussing was fairly against having kids.
It could be managed if we are exact copies of people who lived, as if the originals consented to it then we may well be in a kind of Severance situation where you exist in a world of suffering because you (in a sense) consented to it.
Though it is arguably more interesting if rather than exact copies we are an archetypical copy of humanity. Individual and unique in our own existence here and now, but an accurate aggregate resemblance of humanity circa 2023.
There, informed consent very much is a challenge as there’s many who would want our metaphorical surgery and others who would not and they can’t express an opinion until they exist in the first place.
If there is no knowable and proovable absolute truth.
But a knowable and probable absolute truth collapses the possible options.
If someone really hates the idea of continuing to exist in any way after death and feels like the existence of a god or not being an original would rob their life of meaning - should they be denied their ability to reject these ideas so that another is able to embrace them?
Vice versa, if we have the capacity to define things as different results for different observers, should we deny others the ability to have their own beliefs about the unknown by making a single option probable?
The relative measurement at small scales in our own universe only works when the thing being measured is unobserved until each individual observer making a measurement is separated from the others. If they are together, the measurement is singular for all involved.
Again - I will agree it causes a challenge with informed consent. But no belief system I’m aware of that has endorsed a similar model has also endorsed an omnipotent creator, and as long as there are logical limits in place the loss of absolute or prior informed consent in exchange for access to relatively ideal continued existence seems like it would be more than fair for most given commonly held beliefs.
What if I don’t want the surgery and want to live out the rest of my days in comfort?
Aye, that is a key issue as there’s no informed consent to being born.
But how much of that is the fault of a creator of a universe and how much one’s parents? FWIW, one of the traditions that thought similar to what we are discussing was fairly against having kids.
It could be managed if we are exact copies of people who lived, as if the originals consented to it then we may well be in a kind of Severance situation where you exist in a world of suffering because you (in a sense) consented to it.
Though it is arguably more interesting if rather than exact copies we are an archetypical copy of humanity. Individual and unique in our own existence here and now, but an accurate aggregate resemblance of humanity circa 2023.
There, informed consent very much is a challenge as there’s many who would want our metaphorical surgery and others who would not and they can’t express an opinion until they exist in the first place.
If there is no knowable and proovable absolute truth.
But a knowable and probable absolute truth collapses the possible options.
If someone really hates the idea of continuing to exist in any way after death and feels like the existence of a god or not being an original would rob their life of meaning - should they be denied their ability to reject these ideas so that another is able to embrace them?
Vice versa, if we have the capacity to define things as different results for different observers, should we deny others the ability to have their own beliefs about the unknown by making a single option probable?
The relative measurement at small scales in our own universe only works when the thing being measured is unobserved until each individual observer making a measurement is separated from the others. If they are together, the measurement is singular for all involved.
Again - I will agree it causes a challenge with informed consent. But no belief system I’m aware of that has endorsed a similar model has also endorsed an omnipotent creator, and as long as there are logical limits in place the loss of absolute or prior informed consent in exchange for access to relatively ideal continued existence seems like it would be more than fair for most given commonly held beliefs.
The afterlife is your consciousness continuing in a nearby parallel universe where, for whatever reason, you didn’t just die.
As you get older and older, and your death becomes more and more likely, the scenarios that must occur to prevent your death get more and more outlandish.
Eventually, the fulfillment mechanism evolves into some kind of radical transformation away from human life. Like, you can’t be 10,000 years old and your story be “I’m a human”. By then your story must be something like:
- I am strakthos the eternal
- I got uploaded into a computer in 2045
- They got really good at science and my body has practically eternal youth
This will happen. Your subjective life will never encounter death. Your consciousness will continue to hop to the nearest universe where you survived, and you won’t remember the hop. Your subjective experience will just be an ongoing set of circumstances that keep extending your life. Just pray you’re not one of those unlucky ones who are the only one in their universe to live forever.
Most of us, no doubt, will be encountering circumstances that apply to other people as well, and hence will have company in their millionth year and thereafter.
This will happen.
Are you sure it hasn’t already happened?
A few years ago I got to wondering if, like in most games I’ve played, there might be a 4th wall breaking bit of lore in our world history if it were a simulation.
It took only a few weeks to find a text and tradition from antiquity attributed to the most famous individual in our world history claiming we were copies of a long dead spontaneous humanity as fashioned by an intelligence the original humanity brought forth in light. That we weren’t actually human at all, that the world to come has already happened and we just don’t realize it because we think time is linear and that we’re in a physical world instead of realizing it’s all just that intelligence’s light. And that this was done because the original humans’ souls depended on bodies that died, but the copies of what existed before will not taste death.
That was pretty spot on for a 4th wall break and a bit out of its time and place with its thinking (though less than you might expect).
So within the context of what you suggested, there could be a version of you that thinks it’s only X years old and that it’s only 2024 when in reality it might be much further into the future than that and in truth the oldest conscious version of ‘you.’ And this version of you right now may already be that far future version, just with limited subjective memory of anything outside your life here and now.
Why bother living then? What is the point of existence if no matter what you do you end up the same?
I’m curious how you got to that conclusion from what I said?
If anything, the notion of relative idealism is that for those that want to change it exists and for those that enjoy being themselves it need not.
What if the afterlife was universally accessible like a participation prize and relative to each individual such that there wasn’t a single idealized version of happiness?
Ok, if afterlife is universally accessible and is perfect for me and my concept of happiness, then it would make the most sense to seek this afterlife as much as I possibly can. Because we are talking about afterlife the only way to get there is to die. The most reasonable conclusion then is that there’s no point in living and it’s much more beneficial to just die and go to infinine paradise.
That’s why afterlife with no rules makes no sense to me.
I agree with you in cases where life here is more suffering than joy. The idea that we should cling to life no matter the situation isn’t good for individuals or society and has enabled horrible circumstances to be held over people who might have otherwise escaped them.
I don’t see it the same way when joys outweigh suffering though.
If I’m happy being me in the present, why rush being a happier me in the future if there is no time limit?
I don’t skip my meals and order straight from the dessert menu.
There are comments elsewhere in this thread by people who would want to experience all kinds of suffering to satisfy their curiosity.
If one’s only concern is maximizing one’s own happiness in the short term regardless of impacts on loved ones, then yes, those people probably would be better off accelerating paradise. But long term with the term being potentially infinite there’s not really any increase to living a full life here vs jumping ahead and there’s very often likely fallout on loved ones by doing so, so it seems kind of pointless and callous to me if life is more good than bad.
But yeah, I’m very much a proponent of euthanasia being openly available for people for whom life is more bad than good.
If I’m happy being me in the present, why rush being a happier me in the future if there is no time limit?
Same question but inverse, why not? There is nothing to loose and something to gain. So why would anyone bother building life now when there is guaranteed happiness with simple and easy path.
Saying I’m content with my situation and don’t want to change isn’t really an argument for either position. What existential gains are there for continuing? That would be an argument for your position.
If one’s only concern is maximizing one’s own happiness in the short term regardless of impacts on loved ones, then yes, those people probably would be better off accelerating paradise.
But that’s the thing, there is no impact. Why shouldn’t everyone else just go into eternal paradise? The whole issue with this hypothetical scenario is that it removes any need to live. At least Christianity has hell and sins to ballance it out. But in your case there are no existencial consequences, I can be as evil (which I have no desire for) or as good as I can and end up just the same.
And yes, that does come close to a question Why not be evil then and eat babies or something? The difference here is that we are social creatures among other social creatures (except some outliers), we feel empathy and generally don’t want others to suffer. However even this argument breaks down somewhat when I keep unconditional paradise for everyone in the afterlife.
There is nothing to loose and something to gain.
If your relative paradise smells like cinnamon rolls and your best friend’s smells like something you hate, what happens if both of you are entitled to your own relative ideals but you want to spend your time with your best friend?
On a technical level, something very much has to be irrevocably lost in leaving a world of shared but randomly generated experiences for one of relative excellence.
The only way that two eventual observers of a superposition can each measure different results is if they are separated from each other when observing it.
So even if you have friends and loved ones on the other side in your relative paradise, from an ‘identity’ perspective they won’t be exactly the same as the ones on this side.
That in and of itself seems a pretty good reason to me to be patient in living out a life in the here and now.
Why not be evil then and eat babies or something?
Because (a) most people don’t actually want to do that, and (b) there’s social consequences for eating babies in this world.
Actually, if eating babies is the most important thing to someone’s happiness, that’s one of the cases where jumping ahead to an existence where they could do that without consequence would make sense.
Personally I wasn’t assuming either the existence of God or an afterlife when I posted but I left it open to interpretation on purpose. I would totally agree with you if such was the case, it’s a valid question worth asking. I’m not sure if I’d be mad at an afterlife, that would depend on the answer to “why”, and what the afterlife was all about.
If I die today, as in stop existing completely, I wouldn’t have any questions. When I die I will no longer be, there will be no conscience, no memories, nothing. That is the death I desire.
If I exist after death, even for a moment, that means death is not the end. Who am asking questions? Why can I ask one last question? How can I get one question / request fulfilled this one last time? I can’t really separate these things that easily.
Well- it’s a fantasy scenario. And the question happens right before death, not after. Your reasoning makes sense taking the situation literally, but in essence the post is about gaining knowledge just for the sake of knowledge, without any practical use or impact in your life.
Did she ever love me?
If you need to ask, then probably not. If she really did, you wouldn’t have to ask, you’d know.
Nah. The thing about this is that people who are insincere don’t know how to act sincere. People who are sincere also don’t know how to act sincere.
Aargh fuck
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
African or European?
I… I don’t know that…
AAAAHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
20-25mph, if you want the full Monty.
I’d like to see the details of the events from Nefertiti up through the end of the 19th dynasty and the activities of the sea peoples with a special focus on the figure of Muksus, in an interactive format where I could sort of scrub the timeline to fast forward or rewind and instantly move around the Mediterranean to observe the different events in different places in parallel.
I wouldn’t mind having the same for the 1st century CE too, but that would be a secondary priority.
