New "Have a TARDIS" RAR!

[Purple]

Purple, I'm honestly curious: why?

Well basically I know my self. The RAR has me being given the equivalent of ultimate power. And knowing my self I can freely admit that said power would corrupt me ultimately. Aside from that I am a decent writer/roleplayer who knows how to imagine and write a character based on knowledge about him. Thus it's relatively easy for my self to imagine and describe a character which roughly matches what I would act like if corrupted utterly by such power.

So really, I guess that if you were talking to the "me" that would come out of being given that kind of power the best reply would be asking "why not?"

And my reply would be "no, seriously, what's the point of making other people do what you want? 'Why not' isn't an answer, it's a refusal to consider the question seriously."

The answer is: "Because when faced with this power I would become a psychotic fuck. And a psychotic fuck does such things to get off." On a related note. Do not vote for me in any election ever.

[Gandalf]

I'd find a way to extend my lifespan indefinitely, and spend time watching things. I'd watch all of the TV, and all of the events.

Then I would use my power to help everyone. by advancing medical, agricultural and philosophical knowledge. I don't need to be a god king, but rather just an anonymous, helpful face.

The answer is: "Because when faced with this power I would become a psychotic fuck. And a psychotic fuck does such things to get off." On a related note. Do not vote for me in any election ever.

I wish I was as tough and dangerous as you.

[Purple]

I wish I was as tough and dangerous as you.

You do? Great, how about we trade?

[Ahriman238]

Question, will be able to visit the future as unaltered by us?

[Gandalf]

Question, will be able to visit the future as unaltered by us?

Using the "save point" function, provided you save before you travel you should be able to do so.

[Simon_Jester]

I wish I was as tough and dangerous as you.

You do? Great, how about we trade?

Phenomenal POWERFUL TOUGH MINDEDNESS... itty bitty little grasp of irony.

Seriously, Purple, if you actually believe some of the pro-tyranny stuff you keep throwing around you really do need to try introspection, actually examining your own beliefs, not just saying "this is what I believe."

[Purple]

I wish I was as tough and dangerous as you.

You do? Great, how about we trade?

Phenomenal POWERFUL TOUGH MINDEDNESS... itty bitty little grasp of irony.

I could not resist.

Seriously, Purple, if you actually believe some of the pro-tyranny stuff you keep throwing around you really do need to try introspection, actually examining your own beliefs, not just saying "this is what I believe."

What is there to examine? I believe that any human being would when given ultimate power feel the urge to abuse it ultimately. Thus I extrapolate based on the fact that I would surely do the same and establish the way in which I would be most likely do so.

Basically the logic is as follows. I don't particularly care for orgies or wealth or anything like that. But I like being complimented and loved. And I also don't enjoy it happening unless I do something to earn it. Thus the logical conclusion is me creating a system where people worship me (thus making me feel good) and have good reasons to do so by virtue of having a good life and being brainwashed both thanks to me.

[Simon_Jester]

What is there to examine? I believe that any human being would when given ultimate power feel the urge to abuse it ultimately.

Why?

Basically the logic is as follows. I don't particularly care for orgies or wealth or anything like that. But I like being complimented and loved. And I also don't enjoy it happening unless I do something to earn it. Thus the logical conclusion is me creating a system where people worship me (thus making me feel good) and have good reasons to do so by virtue of having a good life and being brainwashed both thanks to me.

Would it not occur to you to avoid doing absurd and self-aggrandizing things, because they are, y'know... insanely unethical?

[Purple]

Why?

Because ultimately there are two things that stop the average human being from abusing what ever power is given to them. One is fear of a greater power (be that your boss or a mob of angry peasantry) punishing then for it and the other is what ever they have in terms of personal ethics. Ultimate power strips away #1 leaving only #2. So the chances of abusing power grow by a large margin. Just look at history and what happens when one man gets too much power.

Secondly, I know my self in this case. Seriously. I am a nice enough person IRL but give me ultimate power and I'd abuse it. Especially if I can find a way to do it whilst subduing my conscience with the notion that due to an easily accessible reset button it's all well and good and for the greater niceness and stuff.

Would it not occur to you to avoid doing absurd and self-aggrandizing things, because they are, y'know... insanely unethical?

Probably yes. But this RAR gives us a reset button in the form of save files. So any and all ethical dilemmas just go away. I can exterminate all life on earth for fun and than just reset it. Has any harm really been done?
Hell I can do everything I say but make my self a tyrant rather than a benevolent ruler and just make it so that if people ever do overthrow me or try real hard I can just reset to the state that was before and leave them be as if I newer ruled.

[InsaneTD]

You can also look at you did wrong to bring the angry mob, and go back to that decision and change it.

[Purple]

You can also look at you did wrong to bring the angry mob, and go back to that decision and change it.

I was making an example to extreme evil for a hyperbole in order to illustrate the logical absurdity of discussing the moral implications of a situation where no actual consequences exist for any action due to a reset switch.

[InsaneTD]

Ah, gotcha.

[Tribble]

I agree with Purple here, which is why I don't usually go into these scenarios. I would refuse to own a TARDIS because I know the type of person I am, and I fear that I would inevitably end up abusing that power. Now if I were offered travel in the TARDIS with the Doctor and just explore the universe under his watchful eye I'd probably accept the invitation... though given the track record of his companions I'm not sure if I would live long enough to enjoy it.

[Starglider]

I can exterminate all life on earth for fun and than just reset it. Has any harm really been done?

Yes, for the same reason that raping someone and then erasing their memory is arguably worse than just raping them. Ethics attach to experiences rather than end states, because the former is consistent even at extreme generalisations, while the later quickly collapses to the absurdity of 'nothing matters because eventually everyone will be dead / the universe will collapse'. Even 'the ends justifies the means', while valid in utilitarian ethics, requires that 'the ends' are both desireable and persist long enough to outweigh any damage done by 'the means'.

I would definitely 'abuse' ultimate power in the sense of being less than perfectly ethical with it - for any reasonable formal system of ethics - but I am reasonably confident I would not knowingly cause any horrible attrocities or a general decrease in people's welfare and self-determination (though balancing can of course be tricky even for a hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent being).

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. There's a wide gap between "abuse of power" (say, creating a huge palace for yourself on a whim, complete with servants) and "horribly atrocious" (say, enslaving everyone in the entire world because the idea of having billions of unshakably worshipful minions is just that much more appealing than the alternative).

[Eternal_Freedom]

Here's a thought...if I use my ultimate power to make things better for people (even if it's against their will and/or requires changing their lives) is that an "unethical" act? I'm hesitant to say that it isn't if it leads to a better world/life, because that's "ends justify the means" which isn't generally accepted as an ethical position.

[Purple]

I can exterminate all life on earth for fun and than just reset it. Has any harm really been done?

Yes, for the same reason that raping someone and then erasing their memory is arguably worse than just raping them. Ethics attach to experiences rather than end states, because the former is consistent even at extreme generalisations, while the later quickly collapses to the absurdity of 'nothing matters because eventually everyone will be dead / the universe will collapse'. Even 'the ends justifies the means', while valid in utilitarian ethics, requires that 'the ends' are both desireable and persist long enough to outweigh any damage done by 'the means'.

Ah but there you are making a fundamental mistake in perspective. I even emphasized the particular line for you. Erasing memories and pretending an act did not happen is indeed evil because ultimately it does not undo the evil you did beforehand. This on the other hand goes beyond just erasing memories and pretending it did not happen. You would literally be erasing the act and making so that it newer does. Raping someone and than undoing that act completely and utterly to the point of it factually newer happened and he or she was newer raped whilst you newer did the raping is not evil. It's literally nothing as it newer happened. The morality of it is identical to just implanting your self (the only one immune to the undoing) with false memories. Because that is ultimately the end result.

But to cut this short and give you an easy and convenient line to quote me on my opinion on the matter sums up as follows. An act committed can not be evil if it was newer committed in the first place. And if you are to prove me wrong than you must prove the opposite.

I would definitely 'abuse' ultimate power in the sense of being less than perfectly ethical with it - for any reasonable formal system of ethics - but I am reasonably confident I would not knowingly cause any horrible attrocities or a general decrease in people's welfare and self-determination (though balancing can of course be tricky even for a hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent being).

Honestly I don't subscribe to any sort of perfect code of ethics as I find it impossible for such a thing to exist. Human interaction is just far too complicated to be boiled down to a set of rules that we can judge everything based on.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The trouble Purple is that, whilst it may be completely undone, you still did it. You will remember it, so unless you want to wipe your own memories it still, in some other trouser leg of time, happened.

And if you're going to get rid of your own memories, what's the point in doing it anyway.

[Scrib]

Here's a thought...if I use my ultimate power to make things better for people (even if it's against their will and/or requires changing their lives) is that an "unethical" act? I'm hesitant to say that it isn't if it leads to a better world/life, because that's "ends justify the means" which isn't generally accepted as an ethical position.

Really? Someone finally took utilitarianism out back and shot it?

It's incredibly easy to justify domination. One could argue that it is your duty to interfere. One could argue that the abuses of liberal democratic principles are irrelevant when they don't even exist say...in Ancient Greece and would lead to an incoherent position. All this bullshit about people deciding their own path is good in existentialist drama in the 21th Century, not so much for the slaves y'know?

It makes a lot of ethical sense to use said power against people's wills. That problem doesn't seem to be one of principle to me -we forcefeed people "The Good" all the time- but something about the degree to which it can be done here sends it over the top for people.

Of course, I imagine that some theories will be left by the wayside. The idea of a social contract for one. There are good arguments against bailing on the idea as soon as you have an advantage but one this large? What need do you have for "justice"?

Yes, for the same reason that raping someone and then erasing their memory is arguably worse than just raping them. Ethics attach to experiences rather than end states, because the former is consistent even at extreme generalisations, while the later quickly collapses to the absurdity of 'nothing matters because eventually everyone will be dead / the universe will collapse'. Even 'the ends justifies the means', while valid in utilitarian ethics, requires that 'the ends' are both desireable and persist long enough to outweigh any damage done by 'the means'.

I don't see this. If experiences matter the non-experience of rewinding time is irrelevant. It consequences matter it is also irrelevant. Without some sort of focus on rights I don't really see the rewind being worse.

but I am reasonably confident I would not knowingly cause any horrible attrocities or a general decrease in people's welfare and self-determination (though balancing can of course be tricky even for a hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent being).

I hope that it turns out that I don't have to choose between self-determination and welfare but not knowing how such power and knowledge can change me I cannot say for sure. It's quite possible that I run into a situation where repression is preferable.

[Purple]

The trouble Purple is that, whilst it may be completely undone, you still did it. You will remember it, so unless you want to wipe your own memories it still, in some other trouser leg of time, happened.

And if you're going to get rid of your own memories, what's the point in doing it anyway.

Except it did not happen. I only have memories of it happening regardless of it actually happening. Something that we humans are prone to anyway. That's why witness testimony is always taken with a grain of salt.

If we are to accept your stance on this it would force us to accept that every fake memory of any event anyone has is actually memory of a real event. Like all those regression hypnosis claims of alien abductions.

You are basically adding an inherent transience to things where it simply does not exist. Adding permanence to a system which is inherently paradoxical. Since erasing an event after it has happened and prompted by it happening is inherently a logical paradox anyway. You seem to believe that there has to be some sort of thread which connects these events where as I simply see them as they are. Or in this case quite literally are not and have newer been.

[Starglider]

You would literally be erasing the act and making so that it newer does. Raping someone and than undoing that act completely and utterly to the point of it factually newer happened and he or she was newer raped whilst you newer did the raping is not evil. It's literally nothing as it newer happened.

The very fact that you remember it means that the events did in fact happen, regardless of the cosmological history; they are a part of your causal history so you cannot deny that they had physical reality. 'Overwritten' or 'erased' just means 'time-machine-inaccessible past' instead of 'time-machine-accessible past'. In fact in this scenario it is specifically stated that time travel creates alternate universes and 'resets' just move you back to your original universe (actually a slightly different one since the contents of the time machine have changed). On the plus side at least this means you aren't wiping entire universes with the reset button (bad enough if you do it within a few minutes, literal omnicide if you leave it long enough for new people to appear and existing people to diverge).

The morality of it is identical to just implanting your self (the only one immune to the undoing) with false memories. Because that is ultimately the end result.

In fact if you created those memories using a simulation so detailed as to include a sentient victim, then erased the program, then the morality of it would be identical (identically bad). You could of course create fake memories with a much coarser simulation that would seem real enough to you, which would be ethically ok (if extremely disturbing).

An act committed can not be evil if it was newer committed in the first place. And if you are to prove me wrong than you must prove the opposite.

If evidence remains, i.e. the act is still part of history, it indisputably happened. In this case you have memories and might have recordings of other timelines; regardless if the state of the time machine contents is different on return, there is a continuous causal chain (i.e. at the physical level, particle interaction sequence) including the original universe, the 'travel' created one, and the 'reset' created one. That is 'existing' as much as anything in the past 'existed'.

Honestly I don't subscribe to any sort of perfect code of ethics as I find it impossible for such a thing to exist. Human interaction is just far too complicated to be boiled down to a set of rules that we can judge everything based on.

Said the aspiring genocidal dictator.

[Purple]

In fact in this scenario it is specifically stated that time travel creates alternate universes and 'resets' just move you back to your original universe (actually a slightly different one since the contents of the time machine have changed).

Oh. I missed that part. I skimmed the OP and assumed that by undo he literally meant undo. All my previous arguments should be interpreted with this in mind. If we are just branching universes out than nothing is actually being undone and you are right.

Obviously I disagree with you under the assumption of a literal undo.

Said the aspiring genocidal dictator.

I newer claimed to be ethically good or evil. Just that I would be a bastard all round.

[Starglider]

If experiences matter the non-experience of rewinding time is irrelevant.

I am pretty sure it is impossible to 'non-experience' anything; you appear to be envisioning a 'hypertime' model where a 1D timeline is permuted and hence exists as a progression of timelines across a 2D space. While viable and consistent as a model of time travel, there is no reason to privilidge 'past' events along the original time dimension as 'existing' while past events along the hypertime dimension (erased timelines) do not. In fact it is physically inconsistent to do so just as it is for the slightly more elaborate non-overwrite branching multiverse cosmology used in this scenario (which itself is an artificially constructed version of the natural many-worlds cosmology).

It consequences matter it is also irrelevant. Without some sort of focus on rights I don't really see the rewind being worse.

Rights are of course an important ethical concept, but they're also a fairly abstract one. You can't rigorously define rights without sorting out some basic definitions of 'conscious experience', 'volition', 'sentient being' etc (obviously very hard to do rigorously but non-rigorous definitions suffice for casual debate).

I hope that it turns out that I don't have to choose between self-determination and welfare but not knowing how such power and knowledge can change me I cannot say for sure. It's quite possible that I run into a situation where repression is preferable.

The general idea of utilitarianism and indeed modern liberal thought in general is that we should try to increase both. At any one time there is likely a trade off between freedom and welfare, with vocal argument in society about where exactly it should be, but we hope that progress can increase both.

[Starglider]

Obviously I disagree with you under the assumption of a literal undo.

I am fairly confident there is no such thing as a 'literal undo' (certainly that is the ethically safest assumption). The closest physical analogue is reversible computing and (hypothetically) time reversal, but neither of those erase the things that happened, just the consequences. Imagine the 'literal undo' button on your word processor, after you press it it looks like you never typed the last sentence, but the typing did in fact happen and the consequences are still there in your memory, the internal state of your computer, the wall-clock, your electricity bill etc. In an unbounded many-worlds scenario we can imagine diluting the probability mass of the unwanted timeline by overwhelming it with alternate ones, but you can't dilute it to zero without some radically bizarre alternate cosmology.

[Purple]

I am fairly confident there is no such thing as a 'literal undo' (certainly that is the ethically safest assumption). The closest physical analogue is reversible computing and (hypothetically) time reversal, but neither of those erase the things that happened, just the consequences. Imagine the 'literal undo' button on your word processor, after you press it it looks like you never typed the last sentence, but the typing did in fact happen and the consequences are still there in your memory, the internal state of your computer, the wall-clock, your electricity bill etc. In an unbounded many-worlds scenario we can imagine diluting the probability mass of the unwanted timeline by overwhelming it with alternate ones, but you can't dilute it to zero without some radically bizarre alternate cosmology.

I am aware of this. But consider things this way. Imagine a nigh perfect undo. That is to say one that even erases your memory of the event and where the only way to detect something out of the ordinary has happened would be to measure the battery life of the machine before and after embarking on the event*. Also, assume that there is no way to extrapolate the nature of the undone event from this change. Under these conditions the event might as well have not happened as the only thing that remains from it us proof of "something" being undone with no physical connection to what that something is. Thus it has ceased to be, or rather has newer been for all intents and purposes.


Can we agree on that so far?

*Battery life obviously being a hypersimplification of an actual technical description of the change in state of the machine in question.