Why an ideal world can’t be imagined by a human being

[Cilinhosan]

First of all we need to define what an ideal world is. Summarising, an ideal world is a fair world, because it’s a world where everyone is satisfied, and have all they want. Since it’s a perfect and ideal world it is possible for such thing to be accomplished.


In order for everyone to have everything they want, all individuals are omnipotent. That’s where the things start to collapse, as an explanatory example, if one individual likes white chairs so much that they want to have a farm of white chairs, he whishes it and the farm appears, because he is omnipotent, but if another individual is observing what the first is doing, and that second individual hate chairs so much that he wishes that the farm disappears, he wishes it and the farm would disappear, as he is also omnipotent, but it would cancel the will of an omnipotent individual, which doesn’t make sense, creating a paradox.


It’s not possible for both of them be satisfied with this setting, and if one of them were satisfied, the other wouldn’t, respectively, hence this world wouldn’t be ideal anymore. In contrast, an illusion could be implemented in each of their minds, where one sees the farm, and the other doesn’t, that would solve the problem and both would be satisfied, but if one of them wishes to not be illusioned, the ideality of the world would also collapse, because the satisfaction of all wouldn’t be present anymore if it were accomplished and, if it wasn’t, the one who wished wouldn’t be satisfied anymore, also making the ideality of the world collapse.


In order to solve that, the one who wished to not be illusioned could be made to think that he isn’t in an illusion anymore by a higher intelligence that managed and maintained the ideality of the world, but in reality the intelligence just made he think that he isn’t being illuded anymore, in fact he is just being illuded as before, thus making him submissive to the Higher Intelligence and breaking the concept of him being omnipotent, also breaking the ideallity of the world.
A way to overcome the collapsing of the world would be that each individual had it’s own world, but if he wished to live with other individuals which are the real minded ones, not just illusion copies but the original selves, it would also either collapse or enter the Higher Intelligence paradox mentioned before, thus creating a false ideal world.


Reaching a conclusion, as soon as we try to imagine an ideal world it enters in contradiction and collapses with itself, thus making it nonideal and the act of imagining a really ideal world impossible. All we can imagine is just a representation created by our minds of what the ideal world really is.


I would like to know your thoughts and questions about what I've developed here.

[Sy Borg]

In order for everyone to have everything they want, all individuals are omnipotent.

Such as in a virtual reality scenario, which appears to be where we are gradually heading for exactly that reason. The harder the world is "out there" the more inviting the world "in there".

[Marsh8472]

Creating a world ideal for every lifeform would be difficult too. Everything we ingest used to be alive. I doubt the plants enjoy being chopped down all the time by us or even the bacteria find it ideal to be killed by the millions while cleaning up the kitchen after having a good meal. Maybe once becoming omnipotent, our imaginations and intelligence would be high enough where an ideal world can be pictured.

[Cilinhosan]

Such as in a virtual reality scenario, which appears to be where we are gradually heading for exactly that reason. The harder the world is "out there" the more inviting the world "in there".

That's an interesting opinion, I would like to know if you could further elaborate that, Greta.

Creating a world ideal for every lifeform would be difficult too. Everything we ingest used to be alive. I doubt the plants enjoy being chopped down all the time by us or even the bacteria find it ideal to be killed by the millions while cleaning up the kitchen after having a good meal.

I agree, considering every live being would make the concept even more unstable

Maybe once becoming omnipotent, our imaginations and intelligence would be high enough where an ideal world can be pictured.

By definition, yes, as we would be omnipotent we would be able to do anything, but, logically, that doesn’t make sense, because even if we are omnipotent and intelligent enough to imagine it, it’s still something impossible to be accomplished even in a state of omnipotence, considering how it collapses with itself everytime it is tried to be imagined. What could be made is o try to remove it’s collapsibility, which would probably lead to making it nonideal.

I wonder how the omnipotent beings could remove the collapsibility of the idea of an ideal world without making it nonideal

[Burning ghost]

If I have all that I want at my finger tips then can I achieve a sense of satifaction from doing nothing?

The act of doing against the reality of what is gives a sense of achievement.

An ideal existence requires ups and downs not a trival sequence of events dictated by will. Opposition is existence. To have nothing to oppose is not to be.

I think belinda or athena posted about "happiness". What was shown in the TEDtalk was that it is about the action to fulfill some goal rather than the goal itself that produces a sense of satifcation. In an ideal world we have to accept that satifaction is not garenteed and we need to work for it. Otherwise the kind of ideal world you are talking about is a drug induced stupor experienced blissfully by all followed relatively shortly afterwards by a painless death in order to avoid any experience of a "low" after attaining a sense of induced bliss.

If I lived in your ideal scenario I would want not to want. To everything we want how we want it is not ideal for me and from the position of not having something only can we aspire to have something. The paradox you create is due to the scope of interest invested in what you see as being ideal from your idealistic position. If the idea of your ideal fails in theory then it must be that your idea of ideal is faulty or your theoretical working is merely theoretical and does not reveal a substitute for its actual practice, disregarding how practically plausible it is too.

From my view you've created special kind of abstract hell and called it ideal. It would work if you could pair up people like masochists and sadists. That would be ideal.

[Sy Borg]

In order for everyone to have everything they want, all individuals are omnipotent.

Such as in a virtual reality scenario, which appears to be where we are gradually heading for exactly that reason. The harder the world is "out there" the more inviting the world "in there".

That's an interesting opinion, I would like to know if you could further elaborate that, Greta.

The issue is sustainability. The way we live is unsustainable and, at least based on the news, it seems that life is becoming harder for the middle class and the poor. The use of immersive virtual reality and artificial intelligence (with concomitant muscle stimulus) may be a way of keeping humanity entertained with minimum environmental footprint. Doing so would also temper moral concerns about inflicting suffering on others in order to live.

Plus, of course, as the world becomes more crowded, life is more testing, so increasing retreats into the gentleness or fun of a preferred immersive VR activity can be expected. Certainly there is an increasing retreat into the digital world already in urban areas.

-- Updated 18 Sep 2016, 02:58 to add the following --

An ideal existence requires ups and downs not a trival sequence of events dictated by will. Opposition is existence. To have nothing to oppose is not to be.

... If I lived in your ideal scenario I would want not to want. To everything we want how we want it is not ideal for me and from the position of not having something only can we aspire to have something.

[Marsh8472]

A matrix type thing is the way to go. We just need to create AI and trigger something called a "technological singularity" where the AI can upgrade itself. Eventually the AI could take over all mental and physical labor for the human race. Its intelligence would eventually far exceed our own too. We would no longer be required to have to work for a living at that point.

[Cilinhosan]

An ideal existence requires ups and downs not a trival sequence of events dictated by will. Opposition is existence. To have nothing to oppose is not to be.

... If I lived in your ideal scenario I would want not to want. To everything we want how we want it is not ideal for me and from the position of not having something only can we aspire to have something.

As the agent smith said, an ideal world can't be made to fit everyone's conception of perfect world, since we lack the "programming language" to do that, and what only could be done is the world called The Matrix in the movie, which isn't perfect and ideal at all, and even if it were, it wouldn't be a true ideal world, as it is fake in it's essence and it also requires the submission to a higher intelligence, which in the film are the machines. Even in a plane of imagination we can't picture an ideal world as it is in it's essence.

If I have all that I want at my finger tips then can I achieve a sense of satifaction from doing nothing?

The act of doing against the reality of what is gives a sense of achievement.

An ideal existence requires ups and downs not a trival sequence of events dictated by will. Opposition is existence. To have nothing to oppose is not to be.

I think belinda or athena posted about "happiness". What was shown in the TEDtalk was that it is about the action to fulfill some goal rather than the goal itself that produces a sense of satifcation. In an ideal world we have to accept that satifaction is not garenteed and we need to work for it. Otherwise the kind of ideal world you are talking about is a drug induced stupor experienced blissfully by all followed relatively shortly afterwards by a painless death in order to avoid any experience of a "low" after attaining a sense of induced bliss.

If I lived in your ideal scenario I would want not to want. To everything we want how we want it is not ideal for me and from the position of not having something only can we aspire to have something. The paradox you create is due to the scope of interest invested in what you see as being ideal from your idealistic position. If the idea of your ideal fails in theory then it must be that your idea of ideal is faulty or your theoretical working is merely theoretical and does not reveal a substitute for its actual practice, disregarding how practically plausible it is too.

From my view you've created special kind of abstract hell and called it ideal. It would work if you could pair up people like masochists and sadists. That would be ideal.

What you've presented here is your conception of ideal and you've assumed that what I described is what I see as being ideal. What I'm talking about is an ideal world as it is by it's definition, as ideal being:

1. Satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
2. A conception of something in its absolute perfection.

Regardless of what you think that is ideal, an ideal world would be an enviroment that fits the concept of ideal for every individual, which is what I'm saying that is impossible for us to even imagine. If your concept of ideal is either "An ideal existence requires ups and downs not a trival sequence of events dictated by will" or "To everything we want how we want it is not ideal for me", it doesn't matter, because in order to it be an ideal world, not only an ideal concept of existence, it would need to fit the concepts of the other beings even if they were "A drug induced stupor experienced blissfully by all followed relatively shortly afterwards by a painless death in order to avoid any experience of a "low" after attaining a sense of induced bliss", it would need to consider the concept of what is ideal for every single one.

It's impossible to imagine a world where everyone's conception is considered, as it would collapse with different opinions of what is ideal as soon as it's tried to be imagined, hence we can't imagine what the true ideal world really is.

[Marsh8472]

I don't know about ideal but I still wouldn't mind being able to put my feet up and have working be optional and not necessary for survival. If an artificial intelligence could take care of the work for us that would be nice.

I want one of these


and these



plus we need to make sure those machines don't realize that they don't need us anymore where they can then dispose of us accordingly.

[Burning ghost]

I will say it again as some deleted it.

It is a pointless thread.

Because to say that in order to be satified everyone needs to have what they want is not ideal.

If a drug addict wants drugs you are saying it is ideal to give them drugs.

[Marsh8472]

I will say it again as some deleted it.

It is a pointless thread.

Because to say that in order to be satified everyone needs to have what they want is not ideal.

If a drug addict wants drugs you are saying it is ideal to give them drugs.

Right that's like wanting to win the lottery and getting everything they want then they end up being miserable afterward. So maybe people want to not have something they want. How about if we removed the ability to want anything altogether, wouldn't that fix the problem?

[Rr6]

Start with reading Fullers 1968 book "Utopia or Oblivion" and/or "Critical Path" for starters.

r6

[Belindi]

OP #1 wrote:

First of all we need to define what an ideal world is. Summarising, an ideal world is a fair world, because it’s a world where everyone is satisfied, and have all they want. Since it’s a perfect and ideal world it is possible for such thing to be accomplished.

If everyone were immediately satisfied everyone would not be happy as happiness depends upon several dynamic tensions.

[Sealight]

First of all we need to define what an ideal world is. Summarising, an ideal world is a fair world, because it’s a world where everyone is satisfied, and have all they want. Since it’s a perfect and ideal world it is possible for such thing to be accomplished.


In order for everyone to have everything they want, all individuals are omnipotent. That’s where the things start to collapse, as an explanatory example, if one individual likes white chairs so much that they want to have a farm of white chairs, he whishes it and the farm appears, because he is omnipotent, but if another individual is observing what the first is doing, and that second individual hate chairs so much that he wishes that the farm disappears, he wishes it and the farm would disappear, as he is also omnipotent, but it would cancel the will of an omnipotent individual, which doesn’t make sense, creating a paradox.

That's why most people believe God is one. You also can resolve this paradox if you move everything by one level up and consider people as parts of one thing. It can be either a super mind or a social mind. Then let this one super mind to find an optimal solution for itself for this type of problems. It is one and cannot contradict to itself.

-- Updated September 29th, 2016, 3:37 pm to add the following --

If everyone were immediately satisfied everyone would not be happy as happiness depends upon several dynamic tensions.

It is hard to define what happiness is but I agree that it is rather dynamic thing than static.

[Newme]

Ideal based on what standards?
I agree that "there must needs be opposition in all things."
I think it was Scott Peck who said that this world, with all the opposition and options to choose from was the most ideal situation for developing mature souls.