If you could change one thing (violent crime, house, unemployment)

[Sagittarius Sirius]

If you could somehow change one thing in the world, what would it be
(it can be anything, it could just effect you personally or the whole world)

[Sagittarius Sirius]

but also consider the consequences of what your action might do

for example

if someone gave everybody a million dollars, than the currency would become worthless


if someone propelled our technology 5000 years we would probably destroy the Earth and have wars over colonization of other planets

if someone made everyone immortal, that would lead to overpopulation and mass starvation

[jgtheone]

Get rid of war and violence. Sounds generic but it really ruins people's lives and is controlled by those with massive egos.

[Sagittarius Sirius]

Originally Posted by jgtheone

Get rid of war and violence. Sounds generic but it really ruins people's lives and is controlled by those with massive egos.

no war or violence ?

okay then, lets assume all of the weapons in the world are destroyed and all the armies are disbanded, this would make millions of soldiers and manufacturers loose their jobs and lead to mass unemployment worldwide


it would also now be impossible to get rid of unjust governments like the one in North Korea, oppression would increase as nobody would be able to stop it

a fascist group could just walk into the white house and take it over, you wouldn't be able to stop them because you wouldn't be able to physically hurt them (no violence)

hell, the police wouldn't be able to stop non violent crimes either !

anyone could just go into a bank and steal cash


its a good idea, but it could never work !

[Aztecgoddess]

Playing God can be tricky, you'd risk becoming a tyrant. I won't change anything, anything at all. Everything has a reason to be.

[Sagittarius Sirius]

I'd personally make myself the richest and most powerful person on Earth

I don't see anything wrong with that
do you ?

nothing bad could come of it.............

[jtur88]

I'd change Pi to a whole number. I'd change it to 3, so as to not throw things off too far, and also remove 3 from the list of primes, so it would have handy divisors. Circles would then be so much snugger..

[MarineBlue]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I'd change Pi to a whole number. I'd change it to 3, so as to not throw things off too far, and also remove 3 from the list of primes, so it would have handy divisors. Circles would then be so much snugger..

Do you understand that these seemingly minor changes (to Euclidean geometry and mathematical axioms) will profoundly change the very nature of reality? We're not just talking Dali-esque bizarre but completely unrecognizable to what it is now. It would render our concept of the circle devoid of meaning.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by MarineBlue

Do you understand that these seemingly minor changes (to Euclidean geometry and mathematical axioms) will profoundly change the very nature of reality? We're not just talking Dali-esque bizarre but completely unrecognizable to what it is now. It would render our concept of the circle devoid of meaning.

If God was not free to pick any value he wanted for that ratio, then the concept of God falls to pieces. There is a serious disjunct between absolute Theology and pure Mathematics, which cannot both be valid in the same universe..

This also raises the multiple universe question. In an alternate universe, would Pi still have to be 3.14159 . . . in man-made decimal notation?

[MarineBlue]

Originally Posted by jtur88

If God was not free to pick any value he wanted for that ratio, then the concept of God falls to pieces. There is a serious disjunct between absolute Theology and pure Mathematics, which cannot both be valid in the same universe..

This also raises the multiple universe question. In an alternate universe, would Pi still have to be 3.14159 . . . in man-made decimal notation?

It doesn't follow from the fact that changing the rules of divisibility/geometry changes reality in drastic ways that God is unable to construct new realities operating under fundamentally different axiomatic systems.

Shame for you that you can't redefine the rules of inference for the purpose of your (largely irrelevant) commentary here.