# What do you think it would take to ‘alter’ reality or ‘laws of reality’?



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Can it ever be achieved someday?

I mean for us atleast, if one day they manage to come across on what the ‘fundamental mechanics’ of nature are? We still haven’t found what they are ‘made of’ yet theoretically.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Just look at schizophrenia and you will see


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

The red spirit said:


> Just look at schizophrenia and you will see


That's mentally though, not out in the open. We are talking if its possible that they someday manage to achieve the technology level that allows them to 'edit' the way reality works?

Kind of like how CERN is already experimenting to trying to recreate a mini-blackhole, though that's not it but a start which shows we might progress somewhere close to modifying reality/realities in the future one day.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Solar Pony said:


> That's mentally though, not out in the open. We are talking if its possible that they someday manage to achieve the technology level that allows them to 'edit' the way reality works?
> 
> Kind of like how CERN is already experimenting to trying to recreate a mini-blackhole, though that's not it but a start which shows we might progress somewhere close to modifying reality/realities in the future one day.


My question is why we should do that? All I can see would come out of that is a disaster.

Just drink some Vodka, take LSD and you will stop thinking about such things. You will experience that.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

It would take you not having been part of reality to begin with, so you wouldn't exist.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

The red spirit said:


> My question is why we should do that? All I can see would come out of that is a disaster.
> 
> Just drink some Vodka, take LSD and you will stop thinking about such things. You will experience that.


And we already have invented or built things that you would consider a ‘disaster’. At the moment trying to construct a mini-Black hole as a society by tearing one in the fabric of reality and nothing has gone wrong. This has thought to be never possible or doeable.

So long as we do it correctly everything would be fine once we reach that state, if we learn to alter reality we can also solve problems like scarcity permanently and forever possibly. If say somehow they managed to build something that can magnify resources to be almost undepletable in the ‘fabric of reality’. Would be cool as heck. We only just need to find how it’s done someday and how it works if ever reaching that point.


----------



## Dustanddawnzone (Jul 13, 2014)

There are theoretical level of energy which may create new universes, and there is the possibility that such new universe would have different laws of physics. From here, we, then, have to ask how we would make it into the new universe we create. Maybe, we could just cross through some sort of boundary (and assuming that universes laws aren't too different that our forms could no longer exist at all), and we would at that point be, technically, experiencing different laws of physics. 

Though, it has been mentioned many times that the exact constant, and such, on a grand scale need to be in a narrow range to allow life as we know it to form, so such a process may not produce too many interesting result unless you are really into the specifics of physics and chemistry.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Solar Pony said:


> And we already have invented or built things that you would consider a ‘disaster’. At the moment trying to construct a mini-Black hole as a society by tearing one in the fabric of reality and nothing has gone wrong.


Can you please not make a guesses like that about me? You know nothing, yet predict a lot. 



Solar Pony said:


> So long as we do it correctly everything would be fine once we reach that state, if we learn to alter reality we can also solve problems like scarcity permanently and forever possibly.


Ya ya, keep dreaming.



Solar Pony said:


> If say somehow they managed to build something that can magnify resources to be almost undepletable in the ‘fabric of reality’. Would be cool as heck.


Not really. Then we would have no problems and at some point we will lose ability to solve them.




Solar Pony said:


> We only just need to find how it’s done someday and how it works if ever reaching that point.


You make it sound too simple.


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

be god


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

The red spirit said:


> Can you please not make a guesses like that about me? You know nothing, yet predict a lot.
> 
> 
> Ya ya, keep dreaming.
> ...


I meant more in general. We already have nukes, are onto creating A.I to do things for us and also trying to experiment with making a ‘mini-Black hole’ as a society. It doesn’t matter and we don’t care, so long as the results as intended are achieved so face it.

Saying we need ‘problems’ when there are viable good alternatives is the same as saying we need cancer in our bodies to survive. Even then there are other things like disagreements.

No but this is how it eventually comes to be for alot of discoveries. People thought flying was crazy in ancient or cavemen times and impossible to achieve in the abstract idea but it did happen. Same for space travel and the ‘black hole’ people at CERN are experimenting with. Nothing has gone wrong whatsoever, including with A.I.

We have industrialization as a society and will not be stopping it anytime soon despite complaints. Another 'industrial revolution' is going to happen once A.I becomes more developed, and nobody cares if certain people 'panic' that it will 'go wrong' because we have plans to adjust it if anything goes wrong. They're not stopping anytime soon and neither do I want them to for that example.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

If you want to alter reality, go out and shoot a butterfly. Can't tell you what would have happened if you hadn't done that. 

Laws of reality? Which one? Why would you want to do that? Wouldn't you need a law that allows you to do that?


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> If you want to alter reality, go out and shoot a butterfly. Can't tell you what would have happened if you hadn't done that.
> 
> Laws of reality? Which one? Why would you want to do that? Wouldn't you need a law that allows you to do that?


I'm talking about the possibility of doing it scientifically if human civilization ever gets to that point. Heaps of problems could be solved if there was a way to do that and they found out how.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Solar Pony said:


> I'm talking about the possibility of doing it scientifically if human civilization ever gets to that point. Heaps of problems could be solved if there was a way to do that and they found out how.


Doing what scientifically? If we "scientifically" promoted doing more art, we might have a more art enjoying society.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Solar Pony said:


> I meant more in general. We already have nukes


But we don't use them, yet you said that we could use the "innovation" and for good stuff. Nuke is like the worst example imaginable.



Solar Pony said:


> are onto creating A.I to do things for us


Well, somewhat. Most of it just marketing bullshit, meanwhile the real deals often could be named slightly differently. AI is both a thing and not a thing. 



Solar Pony said:


> and also trying to experiment with making a ‘mini-Black hole’ as a society.


What it is?



Solar Pony said:


> It doesn’t matter and we don’t care, so long as the results as intended are achieved so face it.


lol, you obviously care.

But yeah we don't care in general about those things, but that doesn't mean we will not care about altering reality. You make wrong assumption.



Solar Pony said:


> Saying we need ‘problems’ is like saying we need cancer in our bodies to survive. Even then there are other things like disagreements.


You miss the point and don't read what I write.

Not that we need them, but because infinite resources would create those and in long term big ones. Sure, you can say that if we can alter reality, we can remove problems, but that just feels lazy, wasteful and bad. In the end the question remains why would we need to alter reality? I see no reason, other than someones whiny ass or incompetence to be creative with resource usage or just being a loser and crying in corner, because 'life is bad'. Why not just calm down and start changing yourself mentally? It's for free, will bring only good and likely will not be complicated. Go to church, read about faith, start to believe, do good things and your world will start to change dramatically. People in Africa even if they don't have enough food, they still can have fun and be happy. People in NK even if their life is horrible, they still generally are quite content with the little they have. In recent book I read, which is Slingshot by Hector Ruiz, he grew up poor, but he was happy too. The resources in life most often can be replaceable, meanwhile good feelings cannot. Your all so talked innovation can pose serious ethical treat, yet you keep talking about 'resources', things that don't matter. 

And before you start talking about how resources will always be needed, remember one very important thing. People generally don't care abut them too much and survival. But what people ultimately care about is how they feel, what they think, what's their mindset, what is their social statues, what close ones will think and etc. It's just nature of us, to care about things that in survival never make sense and things that logically make not so much sense. That makes us different from many other life forms. This is product of evolution. If you observe people, you can see that people often start to complain before there's a real effect on them, many things are working in social situations on higher level, even often our own identity.

Please look at many higher education subjects. They are simply cramming knowledge into your skull and torturing yourself, the value of it is limited and if you start to look at them and think if any of those subjects will actually bring something good to me after graduating, you probably will not think of any truly meaningful reason. You will think of career, maybe your status in society, but ultimately it doesn't change much. The products of it to human are meaningless, so it's quite obvious that it's not exactly very needed thing and same concept applies to these "changes" or in other words overlygeeky nerdy talks and how they will bring something 'good'.

You can look at CPU industry. Almost no one cares bout how their "tools" are made, but rather people care about what could have be done with them, what good they will bring. That's a mindset of your average buyer, of the average human. Many people were offputed by computers being text based, but once graphical interfaces appeared they more warmly accepted them and got them. Even when that text based environment was really promising. Meanwhile some games appeared, they didn't exactly promised to bring any life helping products, but they did. They brought us a way to relax, have fun and a bit later do so with some other people. People love such things, because they have meaning.

Stuff you are talking about barely has any meaning, so unsurprisingly barely anyone cares about it and like I said it really looks like someones incapability to just stay content with the reality what they have. Even if reality is imperfect in survival level thinking, people often can experience some spiritual goodness and this is the ultimate goal.

And now you come, "huh durr, can we change the reality yet? It's gonna be so good, believe me". Not it's not and requires at the absolute minimum major thoughts about ethics before even doing seemingly tiny things with you. You just make yourself appear highly irresponsible with what you say here. As human I find it unacceptable and as I can see from other people answers, their response is cold and rejecting. So make some conclusions from that and don't be that usual person, who says "it's very important things, just that no one cares about it". It's not important then and it's you, who has to make some adjustments. You can say that this is small scale reaction from people, but if you don't feel it yourself, you can always ask more people about it. To me it's already obvious that it's a bad idea and if it's ever going to be done, it better is done with great care. If it's not, it's a horrible idea.




Solar Pony said:


> No but this is how it eventually comes to be for alot of discoveries. People thought flying was crazy in ancient or cavemen times and impossible to achieve in the abstract idea but it did happen. Same for space travel and the ‘black hole’ people at CERN are experimenting with. Nothing has gone wrong whatsoever, including with A.I.


You make me look like paranoid advancement rejector. It's not me, sorry, your assumptions are off. Not everything new is crazy, but quite a bit of things that are new pose some serious treats. Meanwhile others don't and can be done, yet also look so crazy. 

People once said that it's impossible to reach 100 km/h in car, but that happened. And sure it wouldn't be possible in the classical car they imagined. 100 km/h car was entirely different and very well though out from the fundamentals. In classical car it was realistically possible to be injured, while going at that speed, but in 100km/h car such problems were addressed and it was quite safe to go at mind blowing 100 km/h. So conclusion is that innovations are only good if they are safe and actually useful. Changing reality does neither yet.

To answer your original question:
Can it ever be achieved someday? Yes, it will likely could be achieved at some point, but it's not now and very likely not anytime soon. In human language, not a thing.

Case closed.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

The red spirit said:


> But we don't use them, yet you said that we could use the "innovation" and for good stuff. Nuke is like the worst example imaginable.
> 
> 
> Well, somewhat. Most of it just marketing bullshit, meanwhile the real deals often could be named slightly differently. AI is both a thing and not a thing.
> ...


'Bad idea' mainly in the eyes of short-sighted people or those who think we 'need' bad to exist when we actually don't. There are heaps of things we could take advantage of it to do which would be quite awesome - fun, it would also create far more 'meaning', its just you haven't maybe had the opportunity to see what could be done with it. Entropy and change is always good, those who do not adapt create stagnation by wanting things to remain the same in order to prevent progress. If those types of people (Especially the people who are cancer - I mean conservatives who believe 'unchecked change/progress is baaad') did not exist our society would be advancing at a more rapid pace and many problems would be solved quicker. They really bring no change in the long-run besides maintaining an existing structure that can always be improved.

The big driving reason behind why we create technology is to remove problems (There are 0 consequences so far from that), being one of the most major reasons and the ultimate end goal will most likely be that all problems will eventually be removed as we invent things to take care of them for us. They used to face opposition from people like you who said the same things "Its a part life blah blah." and it kept happening over the course of history, they didn't care what others blabbered. We are onto inventing a supercomputer as scientists say that will be able to do literally all the 'thinking' for us and put even the 'best geniuses' out of their jobs possibly if it becomes intelligent enough. How many people would want to get rid of the technology that removed certain problems historically and 'deal with it' like you think?

If you were one of those people back then you would say the same thing and tell people to deal with their hardships, but some of them won't be satisfied and will still dream of solutions to those problem.

The social construct of 'winner/loser' comes from enslavement to a lifestyle where people are deprived of the freedom to determine their own self-worth based on order/stagnation. Coupled with the enslavement that say people must remain inside that dynamic and cannot be allowed to have a life outside of it.

Its quite simple, if it comes to that point the people who want to benefit from it will start using it and gain advantage over those who don't. Altering reality to create abundance is also certainly more ethical than letting people suffer from lack of it or killing off/deriving rights of the population to 'reduce numbers'. Its giving us a new found way of freedom to do things that do not conform to order or rules, 'losers' are those who play by rules. 'Winners' are those willing to cheat rules and gain an advantage.

I'm saying that we developed nukes and nobody stopped us from doing that, even if the responses were from some who might have been afraid of it. Its also already been used once, and we also use nuclear energy. It kind of shows that those who want progress will not care what you say or think and will press on even against your wishes. They can still do it without your knowledge and once the discovery is out there it cannot be 'unseen' or wiped away, it will attract the attention of people who see the advantage in it. Then once they are using it they will not allow you to take it away from them under any circumstances because of their desires.

No but it is in people's desire and if it comes to be a thing 'on practice' there will be those who are ambitious/progressives or left leaning that will step on you in order to ensure they get to do what they want. In countries without compulsory voting whether the apathetic or 'cold and rejecting' like it or not those with higher energy always dominate over them and they are unwilling to do anything about it, as is the case with how changes like these will go. Those people evolved under slavery and monarchy where the 'big picture' was left to a certain aristocracy and value tradition/constancy rather than change. If there are those who are apathetic its simple, we will ignore them and press on pushing the changes with or without them stopping us (Wouldn't even care to do so).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

All progress and change that leads to greater freedom is inherently good as Marx (And the Anarchist movement also) puts it, no matter what you say. Those who oppose unchecked progress/change oppose the greater good it can bring. Tradition for the sake of tradition opposes progress and must be smashed. Those who oppose innovation are enemies of progress/good and reactionaries who think 'bad/challenges' should remain for the sake of 'bad/challenges' which is a very stupid, backwards, stone age and destructive way of thinking. Many problems exist in the world that would otherwise have been fixed because they've slowed down progress/innovation and also freedom to define/create your own self-worth. The death from diseases is all because of their kind.

If you look from the big picture there are lots of tasks or problems you would otherwise say are a 'part of life' that don't exist anymore because the people who pursued technology did it to get rid of those problems/tasks. Whether you like it or not, including with and without you consent as said before they will continue. Its inevitable that this pursuit will come to a point where scarcity is resolved, people in the 'west' today especially who are progressive would love to live a lifestyle where the 'laws of reality' are more flexible and if it did create meaning/make things more fun/hilarious. So the key here is not to present it as an idea but do it and present the changes, which people will not be able to resist if it brings benefits or make them feel unable to live without the advancement once they are using it.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Secondly you are talking as one of those people with a very fortunate lifestyle who's never experienced any real hardship. If you were one of those people who's children died from starvation or suffered for any other reasons due to scarcity you wouldn't be here saying this. What you are really proposing is 'take the blue pill/go the route that involves opium of the people, go to sleep' and ignore real problems. If this idea was presented to any 'red pilled' people who suffered from scarcity I'm sure they would more be more than happy to consider it. 

Unless you are willing to have your privilege depending redistributed to those in need probably have no right to have a say in this.

I would like to mention survival instinct and self-interest is stronger than this 'blue pill' alternative you are talking about. Hence why people throughout history want to invent things get rid of these problems you and your ancestors think are a 'part of life'. I've lived without some of this technology we've had now early on in life, but when I had access to it many of these so-called 'problems' that were a part of life or inconveniences vanished. I saw as heck old fashioned soap be replaced by hand sanitizes in my community, fictional books/old movies by new movies/video games, maps by gpses when my family bought them or google maps for free and books by free information you could find by searching instantly without needing to walk there and find them when coming into contact with it and could never part with it at all once I got my hands on it.

Also it can resolve overpopulation if we create more spaces or worlds for people to live in within this massive universe. Plus change said 'laws' in theory for people to be able to make stuff out of almost nothing, imagine what luxuries you could create out of that or fun stuff if one day they did manage to reach this point.

Take a look at what you've said and think. If you gave people the capacity or technology to create things out of almost nothing that can be extremely useful to many problems, maybe even realistic art, heaps of cool things or explore/do things you could never think of in life and many more, do you really think they would allow you to take the technology away from them or disagree with this idea?

What happens if they become ultra-addicted or situations happen where people show off "Guys look at what I created!" in that situation before uploading it to social media?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Solar Pony said:


> 'Bad idea' mainly in the eyes of short-sighted people or those who think we 'need' bad to exist when we actually don't.


Bad exists so much everywhere without many of us wanting. It's in human nature to be a bit evil.




Solar Pony said:


> There are heaps of things we could take advantage of it to do which would be quite awesome - fun, it would also create far more 'meaning', its just you haven't maybe had the opportunity to see what could be done with it.


I don't think you realize that power well yourself and as shortsighted person only see a tiny bit of all things by seeing the good of it. Those, who not see bad things don't survive long either.



Solar Pony said:


> Entropy and change is always good


Calm down and enjoy your la la la land yourself and please don't force it on others. It's pretty obvious what you said can start into controversial discussion.



Solar Pony said:


> those who do not adapt create stagnation by wanting things to remain the same in order to prevent progress.


You miss the point, just like I said numerous posts earlier. What you say is not true.



Solar Pony said:


> If those types of people (Especially the people who are cancer - I mean conservatives who believe 'unchecked change/progress is baaad') did not exist our society would be advancing at a more rapid pace and many problems would be solved quicker. They really bring no change in the long-run besides maintaining an existing structure that can always be improved.


Yeah right, I guess you would like to live in chaos, take unchecked medicine, breath questionable quality air. You are way too optimistic and don't consider the bad side, therefore subjective and lacking credibility.




Solar Pony said:


> Some delusional stuff and false assumptions + misinterpretations


I think you don't want a nice discussion and just came to flame. Don't try so hard to get infraction.




Solar Pony said:


> The social construct of 'winner/loser' comes from enslavement to a lifestyle where people are deprived of the freedom to determine their own self-worth based on order/stagnation. Coupled with the enslavement that say people must remain inside that dynamic and cannot be allowed to have a life outside of it.


wtf?




Solar Pony said:


> Its quite simple, if it comes to that point the people who want to benefit from it will start using it and gain advantage over those who don't. Altering reality to create abundance is also certainly more ethical than letting people suffer from lack of it or killing off/deriving rights of the population to 'reduce numbers'. Its giving us a new found way of freedom to do things that do not conform to order or rules, 'losers' are those who play by rules. 'Winners' are those willing to cheat rules and gain an advantage.


Whatever you say can't happen smoothly like that. Like I said not yet.




Solar Pony said:


> I'm saying that we developed nukes and nobody stopped us from doing that, even if the responses were from some who might have been afraid of it. Its also already been used once, and we also use nuclear energy. It kind of shows that those who want progress will not care what you say or think and will press on even against your wishes. They can still do it without your knowledge and once the discovery is out there it cannot be 'unseen' or wiped away, it will attract the attention of people who see the advantage in it. Then once they are using it they will not allow you to take it away from them under any circumstances because of their desires.


Now tell me how nuking people is a good thing. I don't think that nuking people at Hiroshima was a good thing, nor I think that disaster of Chernobyl was a good thing either. 

Later it was agreed that usage of nukes is unethical and world's biggest powers (USA, USSR) agreed to not use them.




Solar Pony said:


> No but it is in people's desire and if it comes to be a thing 'on practice' there will be those who are ambitious/progressives or left leaning that will step on you in order to ensure they get to do what they want. In countries without compulsory voting whether the apathetic or 'cold and rejecting' like it or not those with higher energy always dominate over them and they are unwilling to do anything about it, as is the case with how changes like these will go. Those people evolved under slavery and monarchy where the 'big picture' was left to a certain aristocracy and value tradition/constancy rather than change. If there are those who are apathetic its simple, we will ignore them and press on pushing the changes with or without them stopping us (Wouldn't even care to do so).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity


I can just ignore this part and not listen to your delusions anymore.




Solar Pony said:


> All progress and change that leads to greater freedom is inherently good as Marx (And the Anarchist movement also) puts it, no matter what you say.


Let me tell you that you are at least 40 years too late to join commies




Solar Pony said:


> Those who oppose unchecked progress/change oppose the greater good it can bring. Tradition for the sake of tradition opposes progress and must be smashed. Those who oppose innovation are enemies of progress/good and reactionaries who think 'bad/challenges' should remain for the sake of 'bad/challenges' which is a very stupid, backwards, stone age and destructive way of thinking. Many problems exist in the world that would otherwise have been fixed because they've slowed down progress/innovation and also freedom to define/create your own self-worth. The death from diseases is all because of their kind.


I don't think you need reality altering machine or anything as you obviously have it altered already by your brains.




Solar Pony said:


> Some more bullshit


Really, calm down. Let's just say you have your own beliefs, you don't want a nice discussion. Your questions have been answered. Please don't flame in here anymore, there's no need for it. It's quite obvious that you managed to piss of me and Pi, maybe some others. This chat doesn't produce anything positive and will become a fight if it continues. Like I said, calm down and stop.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Solar Pony said:


> Secondly you are talking as one of those people with a very fortunate lifestyle who's never experienced any real hardship. If you were one of those people who's children died from starvation or suffered for any other reasons due to scarcity you wouldn't be here saying this.


Who ever you are referring to, how can you say that without knowing such person at all? 

Personally my life wasn't extremely fortunate. Sure I had food and clothes, but I have medical problems, deafness being one of them. Also I had many other social problems and etc. That's very nice of you to hate so many people, that simply have food and clothes, and don't die from lack of those.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

If you lived in a world where altering reality to that high a degree was eventually going to happen then you would already see evidence of said advanced tampering, you would already be living it, that would just be reality as you've always known it. Unless there were some other explanation for why future humans didn't try to make our present day or the past less shitty, for lack of better word.

Does that make sense to you? It's similar in question to why no time travelers attended Steven Hawking's time traveler party.

Although I do sometimes wonder if a time traveler from our world ended up attending it in another timeline seperate from our own and we are simply unable to observe it. If there's an alternate timeline where humans mastered the universe then its not this one, and its not observable.

Best keep your chin up and face the reality you're currently living in. Whatever the case humans aren't going to master the universe during your lifetime, so why even get concerned about it?


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

The red spirit said:


> Bad exists so much everywhere without many of us wanting. It's in human nature to be a bit evil.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And there is nothing wrong with 'human nature' being less evil let alone if its taken out in a way that doesn't harm others due to abundance of resources. That is just regressive ideology speaking again, of being skeptical against change or saying that 'change for the sake of change' isn't good which has been proven false. We don't need evil to exist, we only need good and saying otherwise is again like claiming we need cancer in our body to be healthy. Something to note is if they continue to pursue 'evil' as an ideal what will happen is extinction will come when climate change hits.

This is about a future scenario anyway if it ever reaches the point where they find out how to do that and guessing how it might come about or what it would take.

You don't understand my point. I am saying they invented something in spite of your opinions and can do that. Never said nukes were a good thing. I wanted to show you no matter how bad you 'think' something is in your own opinion, the people who invent stuff do not care and will continue to invent in-spite. If you don't care about them the feeling is mutual from them but even more. No matter how much you scream 'bad idea' out of personal ego based opinion they are not going to listen to you.

Anything that opposes your line of thinking is 'delusions' obviously. Its my belief that all social orders should be challenged if they are restricting or limiting in any way against individualism. As long as they are based on order and tradition.

Anarchism (The birthplace of Marxist philosophy) and the philosophy itself still stands as an option, and the goal of many anarchists is to create a society where all people define their own self-worth without being forced into a lifestyle where others determine your value. There is also this sweet thing called 'Third Worldism' that works.

I said the 'winner/loser' dynamics are socially constructed thoughts and not solid fact, the only way they can exist is the same reason why Anarchists including AntiFa want to achieve their goal. People are not our keepers and they have no right to define our 'value/worth', that is the defining value of Anarchy according to the Ministry Singer's words in his breakdown of the song about it. People who want to strip others of their right to define their own self-worth are proto-fascists and sometimes crypto-fascists hence AntiFa fights them too.

The fact that we live in a world of oppressors and oppressed also still exists.

Um we've already cut out a certain percentage of the bad stuff, and there have been 0 consequences so far. We also have inventions that have already 'taken care of' the challenges that people used to call 'just part of life' and removed them. If you've seen or read books about the past there were a fair amount of times when people said 'its just a fair part of life, not sure if that invention will bring any good by eradicating it'. "The road to etc is long and hard but we have to walk it as part of life", only to become meaningless when you could speed through it with a car or bike and save yourself the trouble lol.

The original intention was to talk about in theory what would be required to achieve the goal that can potentially end all scarcity and many problems in the world. Which people in places like Africa would really love to have. Its also a far more ethical solution to overpopulation than depriving people of their rights to make it go down. We don't need to choose evil but if you decide to pick it as an alternative in spite of the many other alternatives available that makes you evil.

So far as goes if you really are bashing something that's a most likely case, take a think that if evolution were true what would have happened to the populations of people who always showed the most resistance when the slave state came into being and refused to ever back down in spite of 'heavy losses'?


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

crazitaco said:


> If you lived in a world where altering reality to that high a degree was eventually going to happen then you would already see evidence of said advanced tampering, you would already be living it, that would just be reality as you've always known it. Unless there were some other explanation for why future humans didn't try to make our present day or the past less shitty, for lack of better word.
> 
> Does that make sense to you? It's similar in question to why no time travelers attended Steven Hawking's time traveler party.
> 
> ...


In the scenario of time-travel what would most likely happen is that it was predestined to overlap with something in modern times were it possible so it doesn't seem completely out of the ordinary either way probably, this is where we to the question if 'fate' is something that exists.

Anyways post was one of the replies I was looking for.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Solar Pony said:


> In the scenario of time-travel what would most likely happen is that it was predestined to overlap with something in modern times were it possible so it doesn't seem completely out of the ordinary either way probably, this is where we to the question if 'fate' is something that exists.


I don't know what you mean by "make it seem less out of place" but that doesn't make any sense. If humans could supposedly alter the fabric of reality then there would be no reason for deliberate inconsistencies that could cause problems.

And as far as current science is concerned, time paradoxes like seem to have been ruled out.

"The actual experiment claims to have confirmed a principle called self-consistency, which basically states that if a particle went back in time it would have a certain probability of emerging and self-interfering across time, and that that probability is fixed to that probability that it will enter the CTC and go back in time. The upshot is that any object traveling backward in time actually has a sort of multi-dimensional probability distribution — much like an electron is in all places within its positional probability distribution."

https://www.geek.com/science/quantu...f-the-great-paradoxes-of-time-travel-1603503/

Which is again, why you would already be living in that reality if it were going to happen.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Here's a video explaining how quantum particles retroactively rewrite time.


----------



## Narlan033 (Nov 11, 2018)

> Can it ever be achieved someday?


No.



> I mean for us atleast


Even more no.

If you could create an other reality, it would still be part of the reality; and reality is infinite - it contains everything, and excludes nothing.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

You could do everything you want in virtual reality, and sometime the experience of it will be indistinguishable from actual reality.

It should even be possible to discard your body and live as a brain connected to a VR server, subjectively experiencing life in Victorian England, Ancient Egypt or even the world of Greek or Tolkienian myths.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

You can't, but you can discover higher laws from which the current 'laws' are emergent properties dependent on specific conditions.

i.e. if we once assumed that "things either glide on air or fall down" was a law of reality, we now know that it's simply a specific condition within our area of reality that happens to be around a planet with a certain gravity well and a certain atmosphere.

We might similarly find out that some things are specific to the emergent properties of our universe If that's the case, we might be able to locally alter those conditions within the laws of the multiverse (note that I dislike the term - whichever is the most encompassing thing should be called the universe. We didn't call other solar systems a multiverse when we found out our solar system isn't the only one).


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

As far as goes for the other guy’s comment about meaning yeah I get it but in learning the how’s sometimes we can use them to manipulate/bend and gain control over or alter, redefine the meanings of things if what they define causes for example inequality or unfairness.

This is how postmodernism and social science Frankfurt school which looks into the how’s deconsructs human or manmade ‘meanings’ that lead to inequality, undermining repressive social hierarchy or expectations.

Gaining knowledge on the hows gives you a weapon that allows you to destroy a person (like the bully type of personality’s) claim of say superiority against you or claim of your ‘inferiority’ by draining it of its meaning in redefining it through broader terms. It becomes meaningless whatever they say and sounds like something else that inspires resistance.


----------



## Frisky (Dec 5, 2018)

Define "reality"...can you? The way I see thing is the universe and all that exists just is. There is no good and no bad, all that is just is but it's our consciousness, our perception of the world that defines reality. That means every individual person lives in their own reality, their own interpretation of the universe. That's all "reality", our interpretation of what's going on around us and within our conscious mind. Now, if you want to discuss the manipulation of reality on the most basic of levels look at he mainstream media and the propaganda that's manipulating people's opinion and their personal reality. Consider the algorithms used in Facebook and Youtube that direct you to things that stimulate you in some way but can create huge bias in what it suggests or shows again affecting individuals perspectives on reality. Just some food for thought.


----------



## Frisky (Dec 5, 2018)

I don't think you'll be able to discard your body more as directly link your brain/consciousness to VR or whatnot. Tesla is already working on something called a neuro-mesh I think..basically plugging your brain into the computer...Imagine how bad people would be addicted to that realistic VR when people can't stay off fb,twitter, etc...


----------



## Frisky (Dec 5, 2018)




----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Frisky said:


> Define "reality"...can you? The way I see thing is the universe and all that exists just is. There is no good and no bad, all that is just is but it's our consciousness, our perception of the world that defines reality. That means every individual person lives in their own reality, their own interpretation of the universe. That's all "reality", our interpretation of what's going on around us and within our conscious mind. Now, if you want to discuss the manipulation of reality on the most basic of levels look at he mainstream media and the propaganda that's manipulating people's opinion and their personal reality. Consider the algorithms used in Facebook and Youtube that direct you to things that stimulate you in some way but can create huge bias in what it suggests or shows again affecting individuals perspectives on reality. Just some food for thought.


Is there objective reality though and what then defines it? What about the stuff everybody simultaneously experiences though the methods could be different?

Or food, health and water plus fullness vs starvation?

I do recognise you have a point (Brass was once considered gold and transmutation of things to brass, in the eyes of people who believed it to meet the standards of what’s classified as gold, or how certain two/three colours were the same in some ancient cultures) but is there a limit?

Take for example for why I mean that I acknowledge the meaning but how we can control it or gain the power to do so in order to make it better by learning the hows? What if we multiplied the amount of land, space, food, water, resources etc to be triple and possibly program or make them keep expanding if they reach a certain point once we learn the mechanics of how things are ‘generated’ somehow?

Reprogram or Augment was a better word* I should have used that before.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Solar Pony said:


> Take for example for why I mean that I acknowledge the meaning but how we can control it or gain the power to do so in order to make it better by learning the hows? What if we multiplied the amount of land, space, food, water, resources etc to be triple and possibly program or make them keep expanding if they reach a certain point once we learn the mechanics of how things are ‘generated’ somehow?
> 
> Reprogram or Augment was a better word* I should have used that before.


Everything is made of atoms, so to make the Earth larger you'd have to create atoms (perhaps from dark energy, if this is indeed what generated them during the Big Bang) and build two new planets out of them. Colonising Mars and Venus seems a piece of cake by comparison.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Bill the Piper said:


> Everything is made of atoms, so to make the Earth larger you'd have to create atoms (perhaps from dark energy, if this is indeed what generated them during the Big Bang) and build two new planets out of them. Colonising Mars and Venus seems a piece of cake by comparison.


The main issue is the livibility of the two resulting in the effort is would take. Creating new ‘earths’ would allow them to hold larger populations?


----------

